| Message ID | 20180501175642.8551-3-mkelly@xevo.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:42 -0700 Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote: > Prior to this loop, we check if fifo_count < bytes_per_datum and bail if > so. This means that when we hit the loop, we know that fifo_count >= > bytes_per_datum, so the check is unneeded and we can turn the loop into > a do-while for a slight performance improvement. > > Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> Seems logical to me, but I'd like to give Jean-Baptiste a chance to comment on this one. If it looks like we have forgotten about it in a week or so do give me a poke! Thanks, Jonathan > --- > drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c > index 0cb7c20100ca..11593deaaebd 100644 > --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c > +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c > @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) > if (kfifo_len(&st->timestamps) > > fifo_count / bytes_per_datum + INV_MPU6050_TIME_STAMP_TOR) > goto flush_fifo; > - while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum) { > + do { > result = regmap_bulk_read(st->map, st->reg->fifo_r_w, > data, bytes_per_datum); > if (result) > @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) > iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, data, timestamp); > > fifo_count -= bytes_per_datum; > - } > + } while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum); > > end_session: > mutex_unlock(&st->lock); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 06/05/2018 19:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:42 -0700 > Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote: > >> Prior to this loop, we check if fifo_count < bytes_per_datum and bail if >> so. This means that when we hit the loop, we know that fifo_count >= >> bytes_per_datum, so the check is unneeded and we can turn the loop into >> a do-while for a slight performance improvement. >> >> Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> > Seems logical to me, but I'd like to give Jean-Baptiste a chance > to comment on this one. > > If it looks like we have forgotten about it in a week or so do > give me a poke! > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Hello, no problem for me, looks good. Anyway, I'm planning additionnal changes that are going to change completely this loop. JB > >> --- >> drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >> index 0cb7c20100ca..11593deaaebd 100644 >> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) >> if (kfifo_len(&st->timestamps) > >> fifo_count / bytes_per_datum + INV_MPU6050_TIME_STAMP_TOR) >> goto flush_fifo; >> - while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum) { >> + do { >> result = regmap_bulk_read(st->map, st->reg->fifo_r_w, >> data, bytes_per_datum); >> if (result) >> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) >> iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, data, timestamp); >> >> fifo_count -= bytes_per_datum; >> - } >> + } while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum); >> >> end_session: >> mutex_unlock(&st->lock); > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, 8 May 2018 16:34:30 +0200 Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@invensense.com> wrote: > On 06/05/2018 19:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:42 -0700 > > Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote: > > > >> Prior to this loop, we check if fifo_count < bytes_per_datum and bail if > >> so. This means that when we hit the loop, we know that fifo_count >= > >> bytes_per_datum, so the check is unneeded and we can turn the loop into > >> a do-while for a slight performance improvement. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> > > Seems logical to me, but I'd like to give Jean-Baptiste a chance > > to comment on this one. > > > > If it looks like we have forgotten about it in a week or so do > > give me a poke! > > > > Thanks, > > > > Jonathan > Hello, > > no problem for me, looks good. Anyway, I'm planning additionnal changes > that are going to change completely this loop. Ah well, Applied anyway in the meantime. Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for the autobuilders to play with it. Thanks, Jonathan > > JB > > > >> --- > >> drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c | 4 ++-- > >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c > >> index 0cb7c20100ca..11593deaaebd 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c > >> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c > >> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) > >> if (kfifo_len(&st->timestamps) > > >> fifo_count / bytes_per_datum + INV_MPU6050_TIME_STAMP_TOR) > >> goto flush_fifo; > >> - while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum) { > >> + do { > >> result = regmap_bulk_read(st->map, st->reg->fifo_r_w, > >> data, bytes_per_datum); > >> if (result) > >> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) > >> iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, data, timestamp); > >> > >> fifo_count -= bytes_per_datum; > >> - } > >> + } while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum); > >> > >> end_session: > >> mutex_unlock(&st->lock); > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 12/05/2018 11:04, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Please make sure the sender is who they say they are and do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. > > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 16:34:30 +0200 > Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@invensense.com> wrote: > >> On 06/05/2018 19:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:42 -0700 >>> Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Prior to this loop, we check if fifo_count < bytes_per_datum and bail if >>>> so. This means that when we hit the loop, we know that fifo_count >= >>>> bytes_per_datum, so the check is unneeded and we can turn the loop into >>>> a do-while for a slight performance improvement. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> >>> Seems logical to me, but I'd like to give Jean-Baptiste a chance >>> to comment on this one. >>> >>> If it looks like we have forgotten about it in a week or so do >>> give me a poke! >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Jonathan >> Hello, >> >> no problem for me, looks good. Anyway, I'm planning additionnal changes >> that are going to change completely this loop. > Ah well, Applied anyway in the meantime. > > Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for the > autobuilders to play with it. > > Thanks, > > Jonathan Hello Jonathan, it's strange, I can't find this patch in the testing branch. Is it expected? Thanks. JB > >> >> JB >>> >>>> --- >>>> drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c | 4 ++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >>>> index 0cb7c20100ca..11593deaaebd 100644 >>>> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >>>> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) >>>> if (kfifo_len(&st->timestamps) > >>>> fifo_count / bytes_per_datum + INV_MPU6050_TIME_STAMP_TOR) >>>> goto flush_fifo; >>>> - while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum) { >>>> + do { >>>> result = regmap_bulk_read(st->map, st->reg->fifo_r_w, >>>> data, bytes_per_datum); >>>> if (result) >>>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) >>>> iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, data, timestamp); >>>> >>>> fifo_count -= bytes_per_datum; >>>> - } >>>> + } while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum); >>>> >>>> end_session: >>>> mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 14 May 2018 08:36:58 BST, Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@invensense.com> wrote: > > >On 12/05/2018 11:04, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. >Please make sure the sender is who they say they are and do not click >links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the >content is safe. >> >> >> On Tue, 8 May 2018 16:34:30 +0200 >> Jean-Baptiste Maneyrol <jmaneyrol@invensense.com> wrote: >> >>> On 06/05/2018 19:08, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >>>> On Tue, 1 May 2018 10:56:42 -0700 >>>> Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Prior to this loop, we check if fifo_count < bytes_per_datum and >bail if >>>>> so. This means that when we hit the loop, we know that fifo_count >>= >>>>> bytes_per_datum, so the check is unneeded and we can turn the loop >into >>>>> a do-while for a slight performance improvement. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> >>>> Seems logical to me, but I'd like to give Jean-Baptiste a chance >>>> to comment on this one. >>>> >>>> If it looks like we have forgotten about it in a week or so do >>>> give me a poke! >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>> Jonathan >>> Hello, >>> >>> no problem for me, looks good. Anyway, I'm planning additionnal >changes >>> that are going to change completely this loop. >> Ah well, Applied anyway in the meantime. >> >> Applied to the togreg branch of iio.git and pushed out as testing for >the >> autobuilders to play with it. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Jonathan >Hello Jonathan, > >it's strange, I can't find this patch in the testing branch. Is it >expected? > >Thanks. >JB That's usually a sure sign I have been a Muppet and forgotten to push. Thanks, should be there now. > >> >>> >>> JB >>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c | 4 ++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >>>>> index 0cb7c20100ca..11593deaaebd 100644 >>>>> --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >>>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c >>>>> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, >void *p) >>>>> if (kfifo_len(&st->timestamps) > >>>>> fifo_count / bytes_per_datum + INV_MPU6050_TIME_STAMP_TOR) >>>>> goto flush_fifo; >>>>> - while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum) { >>>>> + do { >>>>> result = regmap_bulk_read(st->map, st->reg->fifo_r_w, >>>>> data, bytes_per_datum); >>>>> if (result) >>>>> @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, >void *p) >>>>> iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, data, >timestamp); >>>>> >>>>> fifo_count -= bytes_per_datum; >>>>> - } >>>>> + } while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum); >>>>> >>>>> end_session: >>>>> mutex_unlock(&st->lock); >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe >linux-iio" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" >in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" >in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> >-- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-iio" in >the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c index 0cb7c20100ca..11593deaaebd 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c +++ b/drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) if (kfifo_len(&st->timestamps) > fifo_count / bytes_per_datum + INV_MPU6050_TIME_STAMP_TOR) goto flush_fifo; - while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum) { + do { result = regmap_bulk_read(st->map, st->reg->fifo_r_w, data, bytes_per_datum); if (result) @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ irqreturn_t inv_mpu6050_read_fifo(int irq, void *p) iio_push_to_buffers_with_timestamp(indio_dev, data, timestamp); fifo_count -= bytes_per_datum; - } + } while (fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum); end_session: mutex_unlock(&st->lock);
Prior to this loop, we check if fifo_count < bytes_per_datum and bail if so. This means that when we hit the loop, we know that fifo_count >= bytes_per_datum, so the check is unneeded and we can turn the loop into a do-while for a slight performance improvement. Signed-off-by: Martin Kelly <mkelly@xevo.com> --- drivers/iio/imu/inv_mpu6050/inv_mpu_ring.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)