From: Claude Code Review Bot <claude-review@example.com>
To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com
Subject: Claude review: drm/vblank: timer: Estimate vblank timeout if timer is disabled
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2026 14:03:59 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <review-patch5-20260601141922.91498-6-tzimmermann@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260601141922.91498-6-tzimmermann@suse.de>
Patch Review
**Same clock domain issue as Patch 3:**
```c
*vblank_time = roundup(ktime_get_ns(), framedur_ns);
```
This returns a `CLOCK_MONOTONIC` value, while when the timer IS running (the `if (vblank->enabled)` branch), `*vblank_time` comes from `vtimer->timer.node.expires` which is now `CLOCK_BOOTTIME`. The caller receives timestamps from different clock domains depending on the code path. Should be `ktime_get_boottime_ns()` to match Patch 3's timer clock.
**Conceptual question:** The estimation assumes the frame-aligned phase established in `drm_crtc_vblank_start_timer` persists across timer disable/enable cycles. But since the alignment is computed fresh at start time (`roundup(now, framedur_ns)`), the phase will shift each time the timer is restarted. The "estimate" won't match the actual timer phase that was or will be active. This might be acceptable as a best-effort approximation, but the commit message's claim that "timeouts are aligned to frame duration, so we can round up to the next alignment" overstates the precision — the phase is arbitrary.
---
---
Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-04 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-01 14:08 [PATCH 0/7] drm/vblank: timer: Fix timestamps and improve reliabilty Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-01 14:08 ` [PATCH 1/7] drm/vblank: timer: Return success status from get_vblank_timeout Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-04 4:03 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-06-01 14:08 ` [PATCH 2/7] drm/vblank: timer: Fix timestamp calculation Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-01 16:24 ` Michel Dänzer
2026-06-01 17:30 ` Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-02 14:14 ` Michel Dänzer
2026-06-04 4:03 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-06-01 14:08 ` [PATCH 3/7] drm/vblank: timer: Use absolute timer since boot Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-04 4:03 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-06-01 14:08 ` [PATCH 4/7] drm/vblank: timer: Reorganize get_vblank_timeout Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-04 4:03 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-06-01 14:08 ` [PATCH 5/7] drm/vblank: timer: Estimate vblank timeout if timer is disabled Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-04 4:03 ` Claude Code Review Bot [this message]
2026-06-01 14:08 ` [PATCH 6/7] drm/vblank: timer: Verify that expiry time is in the future Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-04 4:03 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-06-01 14:08 ` [PATCH 7/7] drm/vblank: timer: Avoid reading the vblank time unnecessarily Thomas Zimmermann
2026-06-04 4:04 ` Claude review: " Claude Code Review Bot
2026-06-04 4:03 ` Claude review: drm/vblank: timer: Fix timestamps and improve reliabilty Claude Code Review Bot
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=review-patch5-20260601141922.91498-6-tzimmermann@suse.de \
--to=claude-review@example.com \
--cc=dri-devel-reviews@example.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox