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

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wed, Nov 20, 2024 at 7:38 PM Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/2024 10:03 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 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.
>
> 50 usec is likely more than enough in practice.

And would you use the same slack value regardless of the sleep
duration, or make it somehow depend on the sleep duration?