All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
To: Corey Minyard <minyard@acm.org>
Cc: openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipmi_si_intf: use usleep_range() instead of busy looping
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 07:22:21 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190710142221.GO657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190709230144.GE19430@minyard.net>

Hello,

On Tue, Jul 09, 2019 at 06:01:44PM -0500, Corey Minyard wrote:
> > I'm really not sure "carefully tuned" is applicable on indefinite busy
> > looping.
> 
> Well, yeah, but other things were tried and this was the only thing
> we could find that worked.  That was before the kind of SMP stuff
> we have now, though.

I see.

> > We can go for shorter timeouts for sure but I don't think this sort of
> > busy looping is acceptable.  Is your position that this must be a busy
> > loop?
> 
> Well, no.  I want something that provides as high a throughput as
> possible and doesn't cause scheduling issues.  But that may not be
> possible.  Screwing up the scheduler is a lot worse than slow IPMI
> firmware updates.
> 
> How short can the timeouts be and avoid issues?

We first tried msleep(1) and that was too slow even for sensor reading
making it take longer than 50s.  With the 100us-200us sleep, it got
down to ~5s which was good enough for our use case and the cpu /
scheduler impact was still mostly negligible.  I can't tell for sure
without testing but going significantly below 100us is likely to
become visible pretty quickly.

We can also take a hybrid approach where we busy poll w/ 1us udelay
upto, say, fifty times and then switch to sleeping poll.

Are there some tests which can be used to verify the cases which may
get impacted by these changes?

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

  reply	other threads:[~2019-07-10 14:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-09 21:06 Tejun Heo
2019-07-09 21:46 ` Corey Minyard
2019-07-09 22:09   ` Tejun Heo
2019-07-09 23:01     ` Corey Minyard
2019-07-10 14:22       ` Tejun Heo [this message]
2019-07-10 20:11         ` Corey Minyard
2019-08-01 17:40         ` Corey Minyard
2019-08-05 18:18           ` Tejun Heo
2019-08-05 21:18             ` Corey Minyard
2019-08-07 18:27               ` Tejun Heo
2019-07-09 22:11   ` Tejun Heo
2019-07-09 23:07     ` [Openipmi-developer] " Corey Minyard
2019-07-10 14:12       ` Tejun Heo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190710142221.GO657710@devbig004.ftw2.facebook.com \
    --to=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=minyard@acm.org \
    --cc=openipmi-developer@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH] ipmi_si_intf: use usleep_range() instead of busy looping' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.