On 7/6/26 18:00, Marek Vasut wrote:
> On 7/6/26 5:16 PM, Patrice CHOTARD wrote:
>
> Hello Patrice,
>
>>>> I did a test, it doesn't bring any noticeable improvements, but
>>>> nevertheless i will submit a v3 with this update.
>>>
>>> Does the list iteration exit when it finds the first entry that is not
>>> going to be executed at this time ? If it does not, then there will be no
>>> improvement. But for this to work, the list would have to be surely fully
>>> ordered in incrementing timestamp order, is it ?
>>
>> No, the list iteration parse all entries.
>>
>> I see your point, on original implementation, entries are not sort by
>> incrementing timestamp order.
>> I did some implementation test, by sorting cyclic entries in cyclic_list
>> when :
>> _ registering a new cyclic callback, put it directly in the right
>> position in cyclic_list.
>> _ in cyclic_run(), after running a cyclic, compute its next call and
>> insrt it in the right position in cyclic_list.
>>
>> There is no noticeable gain.
>
> Did you also break from the iteration when you reached the first entry with
> future timestamp ? That might actually help.
>
In cyclic_run(), as now entries was sorted by increasing timestamp, only the
first cyclic in cyclic_list is parsed,
we don't need to parse all cyclic_list element.
Nevertheless, in v2, Rasmus identified that get_timer_us() is the expensive
part of the cyclic_run() execution.
And he also noticed that my patch didn't cover every corner cases.
He suggested me a more simple patch i tested and the result are identical to
mine,
see v3 : https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/uboot/list/?series=512333
Patrice
