Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: Replace msleep() with usleep_range() in acpi_os_sleep().

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2024 at 4:08 PM Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/19/2024 5:42 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 18, 2024 at 3:35 PM Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >>> And the argument seems to be that it is better to always use more
> >>> resources in a given path (ACPI sleep in this particular case) than to
> >>> be somewhat inaccurate which is visible in some cases.
> >>>
> >>> This would mean that hrtimers should always be used everywhere, but they aren't.
> >>
> >> more or less rule of thumb is that regular timers are optimized for not firing case
> >> (e.g. timeouts that get deleted when the actual event happens) while hrtimers
> >> are optimized for the case where the timer is expected to fire.
> >
> > I've heard that, which makes me wonder why msleep() is still there.
> >
> > One thing that's rarely mentioned is that programming a timer in HW
> > actually takes time, so if it is done too often, it hurts performance
> > through latency (even if this is the TSC deadline timer).
>
> yup and this is why you want to group events together "somewhat", and which is why
> we have slack, to allow that to happen

So what do you think would be the minimum slack to use in this case?

I thought about something on the order of 199 us, but now I'm thinking
that 50 us would work too.  Less than this - I'm not sure.