Re: [PATCH] xhci: use iopoll for xhci_handshake

2019-02-28 Thread Daniel Kurtz
On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 12:09 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:19:17PM -0700, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > > In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with > > a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second > > timeout. This can

Re: [PATCH] xhci: use iopoll for xhci_handshake

2019-02-28 Thread Mathias Nyman
On 28.2.2019 9.09, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:19:17PM -0700, Daniel Kurtz wrote: In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second timeout. This can translates to 5 million

Re: [PATCH] xhci: use iopoll for xhci_handshake

2019-02-27 Thread Greg Kroah-Hartman
On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 03:19:17PM -0700, Daniel Kurtz wrote: > In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with > a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second > timeout. This can translates to 5 million calls to udelay(1). By its > very nature,

[PATCH] xhci: use iopoll for xhci_handshake

2019-02-27 Thread Daniel Kurtz
In cases such as xhci_abort_cmd_ring(), xhci_handshake() is called with a spin lock held (and local interrupts disabled) with a huge 5 second timeout. This can translates to 5 million calls to udelay(1). By its very nature, udelay() is not meant to be precise, it only guarantees to delay a