From: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: ppannuto@codeaurora.org, apw@canonical.com, corbet@lwn.net,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net>,
linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: Add timers/timers-howto.txt
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 2010 12:33:05 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1280345587-19725-3-git-send-email-ppannuto@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1280345587-19725-1-git-send-email-ppannuto@codeaurora.org>
This file seeks to explain the nuances in various delays;
many driver writers are not necessarily familiar with the
various kernel timers, their shortfalls, and quirks. When
faced with
ndelay, udelay, mdelay, usleep, usleep_range, msleep, and
msleep_interrubtible
the question "How do I just wait 1 ms for my hardware to
latch?" has the non-intuitive "best" answer:
usleep(1000)
This patch is followed by a series of checkpatch additions
that seek to help kernel hackers pick the best delay.
Signed-off-by: Patrick Pannuto <ppannuto@codeaurora.org>
---
Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt | 106 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
create mode 100644 Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
diff --git a/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt b/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..ea10a3a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+delays - Information on the various kernel delay / sleep mechanisms
+-------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document seeks to answer the common question: "What is the
+RightWay (TM) to insert a delay?"
+
+This question is most often faced by driver writers who have to
+deal with hardware delays and who may not be the most intimately
+familiar with the inner workings of the Linux Kernel.
+
+
+Inserting Delays
+----------------
+
+The first, and most important, question you need to ask is "Is my
+code in an atomic context?" This should be followed closely by "Does
+it really need to delay in atomic context?" If so...
+
+ATOMIC CONTEXT:
+ You must use the *delay family of functions. These
+ functions use the jiffie estimation of clock speed
+ and will busy wait for enough loop cycles to achieve
+ the desired delay:
+
+ ndelay(unsigned long nsecs)
+ udelay(unsigned long usecs)
+ mdelay(unsgined long msecs)
+
+ udelay is the generally preferred API; ndelay-level
+ precision may not actually exist on many non-PC devices.
+
+ mdelay is macro wrapper around udelay, to account for
+ possible overflow when passing large arguments to udelay.
+ In general, use of mdelay is discouraged.
+
+NON-ATOMIC CONTEXT:
+ You should use the *sleep[_range] family of functions.
+ There are a few more options here, while any of them may
+ work correctly, using the "right" sleep function will
+ help the scheduler, power management, and just make your
+ driver better :)
+
+ -- Backed by busy-wait loop:
+ udelay(unsigned long usecs)
+ -- Backed by hrtimers:
+ usleep(unsigned long usecs)
+ usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
+ -- Backed by jiffies / legacy_timers
+ msleep(unsigned long msecs)
+ msleep_interruptible(unsigned long msecs)
+
+ Unlike the *delay family, the underlying mechanism
+ driving each of these calls varies, thus there are
+ quirks you should be aware of.
+
+
+ SLEEPING FOR "A FEW" USECS ( < ~10us? ):
+ * Use udelay
+
+ - Why not usleep?
+ On slower systems, (embedded, OR perhaps a speed-
+ stepped PC!) the overhead of setting up the hrtimers
+ for usleep *may* not be worth it. Such an evaluation
+ will obviously depend on your specific situation, but
+ it is something to be aware of.
+
+ SLEEPING FOR ~USECS OR SMALL MSECS ( 10us - 20ms):
+ * Use usleep[_range]
+
+ - Why not msleep for (1ms - 20ms)?
+ Explained originally here:
+ http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/3/250
+ msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and
+ will often sleep longer (~20 ms actual sleep for any
+ value given in the 1~20ms range). In many cases this
+ is not the desired behavior.
+
+ - What is the difference between usleep and usleep_range?
+ Fundamentally nothing; usleep(unsigned long usecs)
+ simply calls usleep_range(usecs, usecs * 2). This
+ built-in slack is similar in spirit to the slack
+ now built-in to legacy timers (0.4%) - and thus
+ built-in to msleep -, although it is significantly
+ larger.
+
+ The reasoning for slack is that usleep is built upon
+ hrtimers, and mindless callers of usleep will actually
+ introduce many undesired interrupts. By allowing a
+ range, wakeups can be coalesced. Given the scale, a
+ 200% slack seems a reasonable default value.
+
+ If your application can afford it, use usleep_range
+ to extend the slack to an even larger window; or, if
+ you need a more precise sleep (?), you can use
+ usleep_range to restrict the slack to a tighter bound.
+
+ SLEEPING FOR LARGER MSECS ( 10ms+ )
+ * Use msleep or possibly msleep_interruptible
+
+ - What's the difference?
+ msleep sets the current task to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
+ whereas msleep_interruptible sets the current task to
+ TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE before scheduling the sleep. In
+ short, the difference is whether the sleep can be ended
+ early by a signal. In general, just use msleep unless
+ you know you have a need for the interruptible variant.
--
1.7.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-28 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-28 19:33 [PATCH v2 0/4] timer: Added usleep[_range] timer Patrick Pannuto
2010-07-28 19:33 ` [PATCH 1/4] " Patrick Pannuto
2010-07-28 20:23 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-28 20:47 ` Patrick Pannuto
2010-07-28 20:58 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-28 21:04 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-07-28 21:11 ` Patrick Pannuto
2010-07-28 21:22 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-28 21:25 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-07-28 21:05 ` Patrick Pannuto
2010-07-28 21:23 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-28 21:26 ` Arjan van de Ven
2010-07-28 19:33 ` Patrick Pannuto [this message]
2010-07-28 19:33 ` [PATCH 3/4] Checkpatch: prefer usleep over udelay Patrick Pannuto
2010-07-28 20:24 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-28 19:33 ` [PATCH 4/4] Checkpatch: warn about unexpectedly long msleep's Patrick Pannuto
2010-07-28 20:24 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-28 20:48 ` Patrick Pannuto
2010-08-03 19:12 ` [PATCH v2 0/4] timer: Added usleep[_range] timer Pavel Machek
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-08-02 22:01 [PATCH v3 0/4] Add usleep_range Patrick Pannuto
2010-08-02 22:01 ` [PATCH 2/4] Documentation: Add timers/timers-howto.txt Patrick Pannuto
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=1280345587-19725-3-git-send-email-ppannuto@codeaurora.org \
--to=ppannuto@codeaurora.org \
--cc=apw@canonical.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rdunlap@xenotime.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.