On Monday 09 July 2007 00:31, Shem Multinymous wrote:
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> On 7/8/07, Dmitry Torokhov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > First, the hdaps driver regularly polls the embedded controller, which
> > > in turns regularly polls the hardware. If the two polling rates differ
> > > or fluctuate, we lose events.
> >
> > That was the case with the original driver as well bit instead of
> > rearming workqueue it was using rearming timer.
>
> Right. Doesn't the latter result in more regular scheduling?
>
Probably.
>
> > > AFAICT, the delayed workqueues used by
> > > input-polldev can get very laggy under load. That's very bad for
> > > sensitive clients like hdapsd (the hard disk shock protection daemon).
> > >
> >
> > input-polldev uses a separate workqueue, not keventd, and so should not
> > suffer from other workqueue users loading keventd. But if entire box
> > is under stress then workqueue vs timer context does not matter much -
> > your daemon which is in userspace may not get to run in a timely manner
> > anyway.
>
> The daemon itself typically runs with a higher priority (and sleeps a
> lot so it gets further dumped). More importantly, the daemon depends
> not only on the latest measurement, but also on recent measurements
> have been obtained from the hardware in a regular fashion and with
> reasonably accurate timestamps. And *this* depends solely on the hdaps
> driver.
>
Every input event carries a timestamp so even if there are irregularities
in taking the samples you should be able to account for it.
>
> > However I am open to bumping up priority of ipolldevd a little.
>
> Will this result in scheduling tha'ts as reliable as rearming timers
> from softirq? I saw claims to the contrary, but it it's true then I
> withdraw the first objection.
Probably not. But I still think that if system is so busy that it can't
get aroung to schedule one of workqueues it will not be able to part
the driver fast enough anyway.
>
> > > Second, this is incompatible with the much-needed addition of a 2nd
> > > input device relying on the same data. The existing hdaps input device
> > > does "joystick emulation", i.e., reports values after calibration and
> > > fuzzing. Userspace programs that need the raw data, like hdapsd,
> > > currently have to poll the sysfs attribute, which is inefficient,
> > > lag-prone and induces unnecessary interrupts on tickless sytems. To
> > > solve this we'll have to add a 2nd input device to hdaps, for
> > > reporting the raw accelerometer data. (Michael Riepe and me are now
> > > working on such a patch.) But these two input devices need to share
> > > their polling of the underlying EC hardware, and this is impossible
> > > using input-polldev.
> >
> > I am curious why you can't use the current device, since the calibration
> > done in hdaps does not alter the scale but merely moves '0' point around.
> > And fuzz should only remove small jitters, not rapidly changing data
> > that you shoudl get when your box is falling.
>
> Recent versions of the hdapsd daemons do much more than a simple
> threshold check: they gather some 2nd-order and decaying averages
> statistics to catch subtle abnormal movement (e.g., sliding off a
> surface) that's indicative of potential shock. As pointed out in IBM's
> HDAPS whitepaper, by the time the box is actually in free fall, it's
> too late to start parking the heads. Now, that kind of movement is not
> very far from the noise floor, so hdapsd needs all the accuracy it can
> get -- hence fuzzing is very disruptive. Calibration is currently
> harmless, but I can certainly imagine more advanced hdapsd that uses
> heuristics based, e.g., on the absolute orientation of the laptop, so
> let's not ruin this data.
If hdaps is the main consumer for the data it may be a good idea to
just remove the fuzz setting from input device. I don't have the hardware,
how bad is it without fuzz?
>
>
> > However nothing stops you from generating events for the 2nd input
> > device from the same polling function that generates events for the
> > first device.
>
> You could one input device open, or the other, or both. How would you
> set up input-polldev to handle this?
>
Have 2nd input device's ->open() method call input_open_device() for
the first one.
>
> > > As for the mutex in atomic context issue, isn't it best addressed by
> > > making mutex_trylock() do the sensible thing in softirqt?
>
> BTW, I think that's worth fixing in any case.
>
> Shem
>
--
Dmitry
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
