All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: jamienstar@163.com (Jamie Huang)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: About the accuracy of delay loop
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 22:59:39 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160810225939.7f3142ba@JAMIE.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160810153429.2489b087@xhacker>

On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:34:29 +0800
Jisheng Zhang <jszhang@marvell.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2016 15:24:56 +0800 Jamie Huang wrote:
> 
> > Hi, all.
> > 	I have a question about the commit
> > 	d0a533b18235d36206b9b422efadb7cee444dfdb ARM: 7452/1: delay:
> > allow timer-based delay implementation to be selected.
> > 
> > 	Recently, I found the BogoMIPS info of kernel start-up log
> > is not correct.The correct info is as follows:
> > 
> > 	Calibrating delay loop... 719.25 BogoMIPS (lpj=3596288)
> > 
> > 	But, after the patch above, the info changed as follows:
> > 
> > 	Calibrating delay loop... 478.41 BogoMIPS (lpj=2392064)
> > 
> > 	I find the difference from assembly code.
> > 	Before the patch:
> > 	  __delay(loops_per_jiffy);
> >              c002bcf0:       e50b3034   str r3, [fp, #-52]  ; 0x34
> >              c002bcf4:       e50b2030   str r2, [fp, #-48]  ; 0x30
> >              c002bcf8:       eb06ddd8   bl c01e3460 <__delay>
> > 
> > 	After the patch:
> >           __delay(loops_per_jiffy);
> >              c04add08:       e5932000   ldr r2, [r3]
> >              c04add0c:       e50b105c   str r1, [fp, #-92]  ; 0x5c
> >              c04add10:       e50b3060   str r3, [fp, #-96]  ; 0x60
> >              c04add14:       e50bc064   str ip, [fp, #-100] ; 0x64
> >              c04add18:       e12fff32   blx r2
> > 
> >  	There are two additional instructions, and these will
> >  	influence calibration of delay loop. I also worry that this
> >  	new implementation will influence the accuracy of udelay.
> > Does  
> 
> Per my understanding, udelay is never ensured "accurate", it only
> ensures that it at least delays as required.
> 
> If udelay is timer-based, then it could gives more accuracy.
> 
> Thanks,
> Jisheng
> 
> >  	any one know this problem?
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-arm-kernel mailing list
> > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org
> > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel  
> 

Thank you for reply. But the users may be confused because of the
different results. You mean there is no need to worry about it? 

  reply	other threads:[~2016-08-10 14:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-08-10  7:24 About the accuracy of delay loop Jamie Huang
2016-08-10  7:34 ` Jisheng Zhang
2016-08-10 14:59   ` Jamie Huang [this message]
2016-08-10 15:20     ` Willy Tarreau
2016-08-10 15:43   ` Russell King - ARM Linux

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=20160810225939.7f3142ba@JAMIE.lan \
    --to=jamienstar@163.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /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.