Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2022 23:39:01 -0700 From: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> To: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: atkbd_timeout() period? Message-ID: <CANCZdfoF44HGN=-O1Vaxg6htA5-9=GLQDaH3nDib0SeF-bc1pg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <e2c07aa3-975a-1780-d6f8-db03d12a232f@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:42 PM Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> wrote: > Hi, > > As I see, one of the most active threaded callouts on idle VMware VM and > some hardware is atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second. Plus it > is also one of few remaining non-MP-safe callouts. According to the > comment it seems to be only a workaround for some lost interrupts. That > makes me thing: is it really needed to run so often and so accurate, or > may be we could reduce it to 1-2 times per second? Or may be it can be > avoided somehow 20 years later? > Yea, we can likely just trash it and wait for people to complain about the keyboard being hung. I doubt we'll get any complaints because Xaccel 2.1 was quite a long time ago... It is no longer relevant and the original conditions that caused the lost interrupts are likely long gone... And if they aren't, we'll get a reproducible test case to judge what the right workaround should be. Warner [-- Attachment #2 --] <div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Jan 4, 2022 at 10:42 PM Alexander Motin <<a href="mailto:mav@freebsd.org">mav@freebsd.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br> <br> As I see, one of the most active threaded callouts on idle VMware VM and<br> some hardware is atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second. Plus it<br> is also one of few remaining non-MP-safe callouts. According to the<br> comment it seems to be only a workaround for some lost interrupts. That<br> makes me thing: is it really needed to run so often and so accurate, or<br> may be we could reduce it to 1-2 times per second? Or may be it can be<br> avoided somehow 20 years later?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yea, we can likely just trash it and wait for people to complain about the</div><div>keyboard being hung. I doubt we'll get any complaints because Xaccel 2.1</div><div>was quite a long time ago... It is no longer relevant and the original conditions</div><div>that caused the lost interrupts are likely long gone...</div><div><br></div><div>And if they aren't, we'll get a reproducible test case to judge what the right workaround</div><div>should be.</div><div><br></div><div>Warner<br></div><div><br></div></div></div>help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CANCZdfoF44HGN=-O1Vaxg6htA5-9=GLQDaH3nDib0SeF-bc1pg>