[PATCH] arm: spin one more cycle in timer-based delays

[will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 02:36:33PM +0100, Mason wrote:
> When polling a tick counter in a busy loop, one might sample the
> counter just *before* it is updated, and then again just *after*
> it is updated. In that case, while mathematically v2-v1 equals 1,
> only epsilon has really passed.
> 
> So, if a caller requests an N-cycle delay, we spin until v2-v1
> is strictly greater than N to avoid these random corner cases.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mason <slash.tmp@free.fr>
> ---
>  arch/arm/lib/delay.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/delay.c b/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
> index 69aad80a3af4..3f1cd15ca102 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
> @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ static void __timer_delay(unsigned long cycles)
>  {
>  	cycles_t start = get_cycles();
>  
> -	while ((get_cycles() - start) < cycles)
> +	while ((get_cycles() - start) <= cycles)
>  		cpu_relax();
>  }

I thought a bit about this last night. It is well known that the delay
routines are not guaranteed to be accurate, and I don't *think* that's
limited to over-spinning, so arguably this isn't a bug. However, taking
the approach that "drivers should figure it out" is also unhelpful,
because the frequency of the underlying counter isn't generally known
and so drivers can't simply adjust the delay parameter.

If you want to go ahead with this change, I do think that you should fix
the other architectures for consistency (particularly arm64, which is
likely to share drivers with arch/arm/). However, given that I don't
think you've seen a failure in practice, it might be a hard sell to get
the patches picked up, especially given the deliberately vague guarantees
offered by the delay loop.

Will