There seems to be some misunderstanding that udelay() and friends will
always guarantee the specified delay. This is a false understanding.
When udelay() is based on CPU cycles, it can return early for many
reasons which are detailed by Linus' reply to me in a thread in 2011:
http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/01/12/372
However, a udelay test module was created in 2014 which allows udelay()
to only be 0.5% fast, which is outside of the CPU-cycles udelay()
results I measured back in 2011, which were deemed to be in the "we
don't care" region.
test_udelay() should be fixed to reflect the real allowable tolerance
on udelay(), rather than 0.5%.
Cc: David Riley <davidriley@chromium.org>
Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
usleep_range is a finer precision implementations of msleep
and is designed to be a drop-in replacement for udelay where
a precise sleep / busy-wait is unnecessary.
Since an easy interface to hrtimers could lead to an undesired
proliferation of interrupts, we provide only a "range" API,
forcing the caller to think about an acceptable tolerance on
both ends and hopefully avoiding introducing another interrupt.
INTRO
As discussed here ( http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/3/250 ), msleep(1) is not
precise enough for many drivers (yes, sleep precision is an unfair notion,
but consistently sleeping for ~an order of magnitude greater than requested
is worth fixing). This patch adds a usleep API so that udelay does not have
to be used. Obviously not every udelay can be replaced (those in atomic
contexts or being used for simple bitbanging come to mind), but there are
many, many examples of
mydriver_write(...)
/* Wait for hardware to latch */
udelay(100)
in various drivers where a busy-wait loop is neither beneficial nor
necessary, but msleep simply does not provide enough precision and people
are using a busy-wait loop instead.
CONCERNS FROM THE RFC
Why is udelay a problem / necessary? Most callers of udelay are in device/
driver initialization code, which is serial...
As I see it, there is only benefit to sleeping over a delay; the
notion of "refactoring" areas that use udelay was presented, but
I see usleep as the refactoring. Consider i2c, if the bus is busy,
you need to wait a bit (say 100us) before trying again, your
current options are:
* udelay(100)
* msleep(1) <-- As noted above, actually as high as ~20ms
on some platforms, so not really an option
* Manually set up an hrtimer to try again in 100us (which
is what usleep does anyway...)
People choose the udelay route because it is EASY; we need to
provide a better easy route.
Device / driver / boot code is *currently* serial, but every few
months someone makes noise about parallelizing boot, and IMHO, a
little forward-thinking now is one less thing to worry about
if/when that ever happens
udelay's could be preempted
Sure, but if udelay plans on looping 1000 times, and it gets
preempted on loop 200, whenever it's scheduled again, it is
going to do the next 800 loops.
Is the interruptible case needed?
Probably not, but I see usleep as a very logical parallel to msleep,
so it made sense to include the "full" API. Processors are getting
faster (albeit not as quickly as they are becoming more parallel),
so if someone wanted to be interruptible for a few usecs, why not
let them? If this is a contentious point, I'm happy to remove it.
OTHER THOUGHTS
I believe there is also value in exposing the usleep_range option; it gives
the scheduler a lot more flexibility and allows the programmer to express
his intent much more clearly; it's something I would hope future driver
writers will take advantage of.
To get the results in the NUMBERS section below, I literally s/udelay/usleep
the kernel tree; I had to go in and undo the changes to the USB drivers, but
everything else booted successfully; I find that extremely telling in and
of itself -- many people are using a delay API where a sleep will suit them
just fine.
SOME ATTEMPTS AT NUMBERS
It turns out that calculating quantifiable benefit on this is challenging,
so instead I will simply present the current state of things, and I hope
this to be sufficient:
How many udelay calls are there in 2.6.35-rc5?
udealy(ARG) >= | COUNT
1000 | 319
500 | 414
100 | 1146
20 | 1832
I am working on Android, so that is my focus for this. The following table
is a modified usleep that simply printk's the amount of time requested to
sleep; these tests were run on a kernel with udelay >= 20 --> usleep
"boot" is power-on to lock screen
"power collapse" is when the power button is pushed and the device suspends
"resume" is when the power button is pushed and the lock screen is displayed
(no touchscreen events or anything, just turning on the display)
"use device" is from the unlock swipe to clicking around a bit; there is no
sd card in this phone, so fail loading music, video, camera
ACTION | TOTAL NUMBER OF USLEEP CALLS | NET TIME (us)
boot | 22 | 1250
power-collapse | 9 | 1200
resume | 5 | 500
use device | 59 | 7700
The most interesting category to me is the "use device" field; 7700us of
busy-wait time that could be put towards better responsiveness, or at the
least less power usage.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@codeaurora.org>
Cc: apw@canonical.com
Cc: corbet@lwn.net
Cc: arjan@linux.intel.com
Cc: Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
usleep[_range] are finer precision implementations of msleep
and are designed to be drop-in replacements for udelay where
a precise sleep / busy-wait is unnecessary. They also allow
an easy interface to specify slack when a precise (ish)
wakeup is unnecessary to help minimize wakeups
Signed-off-by: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@codeaurora.org>
Cc: akinobu.mita@gmail.com
Cc: sboyd@codeaurora.org
Acked-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
LKML-Reference: <4C44CDD2.1070708@codeaurora.org>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
As suggested by Ingo, remove all references to tsc from init/calibrate.c
TSC is x86 specific, and using tsc in variable names in a generic file should
be avoided. lpj_tsc is now called lpj_fine, since it is related to fine tuning
of lpj value. Also tsc_rate_* is called timer_rate_*
Signed-off-by: Alok N Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Daniel Hecht <dhecht@vmware.com>
Cc: Tim Mann <mann@vmware.com>
Cc: Zach Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
Cc: Sahil Rihan <srihan@vmware.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
On the x86 platform we can use the value of tsc_khz computed during tsc
calibration to calculate the loops_per_jiffy value. Its very important
to keep the error in lpj values to minimum as any error in that may
result in kernel panic in check_timer. In virtualization environment, On
a highly overloaded host the guest delay calibration may sometimes
result in errors beyond the ~50% that timer_irq_works can handle,
resulting in the guest panicking.
Does some formating changes to lpj_setup code to now have a single
printk to print the bogomips value.
We do this only for the boot processor because the AP's can have
different base frequencies or the BIOS might boot a AP at a different
frequency.
Signed-off-by: Alok N Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Daniel Hecht <dhecht@vmware.com>
Cc: Tim Mann <mann@vmware.com>
Cc: Zach Amsden <zach@vmware.com>
Cc: Sahil Rihan <srihan@vmware.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
We should be able to do ndelay(some_u64), but that can cause a call to
__divdi3() to be emitted because the ndelay() macros does a divide.
Fix it by switching to static inline which will force the u64 arg to be
treated as an unsigned long. udelay() takes an unsigned long arg.
[bunk@kernel.org: reported m68k build breakage]
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Cc: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>
Cc: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
On partitioned PPC64 systems where a partition is given 1/10 of a
processor, we have seen mdelay() delaying for 10 times longer than it
should. The reason is that the generic mdelay(n) does n delays of 1
millisecond each. However, with 1/10 of a processor, we only get a
one-millisecond timeslice every 10ms. Thus each 1 millisecond delay
loop ends up taking 10ms elapsed time.
The solution is just to use the PPC64 udelay function, which uses the
timebase to ensure that the delay is based on elapsed time rather than
how much processing time the partition has been given. (Yes, the
generic mdelay uses the PPC64 udelay, but the problem is that the
start time gets reset every millisecond, and each time it gets reset
we lose another 9ms.)
Signed-off-by: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
Signed-off-by: Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>
Acked-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Initial git repository build. I'm not bothering with the full history,
even though we have it. We can create a separate "historical" git
archive of that later if we want to, and in the meantime it's about
3.2GB when imported into git - space that would just make the early
git days unnecessarily complicated, when we don't have a lot of good
infrastructure for it.
Let it rip!
Russell King