Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:07:17 +0300 From: Mehmet Erol Sanliturk <m.e.sanliturk@gmail.com> To: Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> Cc: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org>, "freebsd-current@freebsd.org" <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: atkbd_timeout() period? Message-ID: <CAOgwaMsBK8Wx1mD9RPaSOmS6Di237x60Oh617%2Box-1Y6RTeQmA@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CANCZdfoF44HGN=-O1Vaxg6htA5-9=GLQDaH3nDib0SeF-bc1pg@mail.gmail.com> References: <e2c07aa3-975a-1780-d6f8-db03d12a232f@FreeBSD.org> <CANCZdfoF44HGN=-O1Vaxg6htA5-9=GLQDaH3nDib0SeF-bc1pg@mail.gmail.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
[-- Attachment #1 --]
On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:39 AM Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
If "10" in " atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second "
can be defined by a control variable ,
then
it may not be necessary to remove its call , and
polling rate may be set with respect to the suitable needs .
Mehmet Erol Sanliturk
[-- Attachment #2 --]
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 9:39 AM Warner Losh <<a href="mailto:imp@bsdimp.com">imp@bsdimp.com</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"><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" target="_blank">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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default">If "10" in " atkbd_timeout(), called 10 times per second "<br></div></div><div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default"> can be defined by a control variable ,</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default">then</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default"> it may not be necessary to remove its call , and</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default"> polling rate may be set with respect to the suitable needs .</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default">Mehmet Erol Sanliturk</div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large" class="gmail_default"><br></div><br></div><div><br></div><div><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?CAOgwaMsBK8Wx1mD9RPaSOmS6Di237x60Oh617%2Box-1Y6RTeQmA>