mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>
Cc: "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, Lv Zheng <zetalog@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: EC: Change EC noirq tuning to be an optional behavior
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2017 23:31:16 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1792284.us4mECpxNF@aspire.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <157972fa5572b0f0c157142ea151b8508e7640b4.1497418749.git.lv.zheng@intel.com>

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 01:59:24 PM Lv Zheng wrote:
> According to the bug report, though the busy polling mode can make noirq
> stages executed faster, it causes abnormal fan blowing in noirq stages.
> 
> This patch prepares an option so that the automatic busy polling mode
> switching for noirq stages can be enabled by who wants to tune it, not all
> users.
> Noticed that the new global option cannot be changed during noirq stages.
> There is no need to lock its value changes to sync with polling mode
> settings switches.
> 
> For reporters and testers in the thread, as there are too many reporters
> on the bug link, this patch only picks names from most active commenters.
> Sorry for the neglet.
> 
> Link: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=191181
> Reported-by: Tatsuyuki Ishi <ishitatsuyuki@gmail.com>
> Reported-by: Claudio Sacerdoti Coen <claudio.sacerdoticoen@unibo.it>
> Tested-by: Nicolo' <nicolopiazzalunga@gmail.com>
> Reported-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Tested-by: Gjorgji Jankovski <j.gjorgji@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Damjan Georgievski <gdamjan@gmail.com>
> Tested-by: Fernando Chaves <nanochaves@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@intel.com>

First of all, this seems to be a fix for commit c3a696b6e8f8 (ACPI / EC: Use busy polling
mode when GPE is not enabled), so there should be a Fixes: tag pointing to that
one.

Moreover, if that is just a performance optimization and not a matter of correctness,
why don't we simply drop acpi_ec_enter/leave_noirq() entirely?

What is going to break if we do that?

Thanks,
Rafael

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-28 21:38 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-06-14  5:59 [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: EC: Fix an EC event IRQ storming issue Lv Zheng
2017-06-14  5:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] ACPI: EC: Fix EC command visibility for dynamic debug Lv Zheng
2017-06-14  5:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] ACPI: EC: Change EC noirq tuning to be an optional behavior Lv Zheng
2017-06-28 21:31   ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2017-07-03  5:15     ` Zheng, Lv
2017-07-06  8:30       ` Chen Yu
2017-06-28 21:23 ` [PATCH 1/3] ACPI: EC: Fix an EC event IRQ storming issue Rafael J. Wysocki

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=1792284.us4mECpxNF@aspire.rjw.lan \
    --to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
    --cc=len.brown@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lv.zheng@intel.com \
    --cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
    --cc=zetalog@gmail.com \
    /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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®