From: skannan@codeaurora.org (skannan at codeaurora.org)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: udelay() broken for SMP cores?
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:39:39 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ea62885d30e4bbfb84db59758fa9e946.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100421072243.GA913@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
> On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:43:23PM -0700, Saravana Kannan wrote:
>>
>>>> I looked at arch/arm/lib/delay.S and it looks like __udelay and
>>>> __const_udelay won't work correctly for SMP cores. The code just uses
>>>> the loops_per_jiffy variable instead of the per-CPU loops per jiffy
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> Is anyone already working on a fix for that? If not, I can fix it up
>>>> in
>>>> a way that's hopefully palatable to the community.
>>>
>>
>>> If you have case where individual CPUs are running at different speed
>>> and different
>>> Tick rate then only this can make difference.
>>
>> Yes. I was talking about the case where the CPUs could be running at
>> different speeds.
>
> We don't support that; if we did, we'd have to disable preempt for every
> call to mdelay/udelay to ensure that the thread is locked to a particular
> CPU. I suspect that will (a) destroy RT scheduling preformance (b)
> increase preempt latency to an undesirable extent.
>
Is this an ARM specific decision? Cpufreq certainly supports per cpu scaling
and x86 udelay uses per-CPU data. So your concern should apply for x86
too. I had the same concern and was planning on bring it up in the cpufreq
mailing list after I made sure I didn't misunderstand anything.
Btw, your concern should apply for single core scaling too, right? Context
switch can complete within max udelay (general - 5ms, ARM - 2ms) time and
CPU could have jumped
from lowest to highest speed in that time and mess up udelay. I didn't see
any code in cpufreq that deferred scaling during udelay. So, that's something
I plan to ask cpufreq folks too.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks,
Saravana
P.S: Sent from phone. Pls excuse formatting issues.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-21 9:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-21 2:19 udelay() broken for SMP cores? Saravana Kannan
2010-04-21 4:56 ` Shilimkar, Santosh
2010-04-21 6:43 ` Saravana Kannan
2010-04-21 7:22 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-21 9:39 ` skannan at codeaurora.org [this message]
2010-04-21 9:50 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-21 9:58 ` Gilles Chanteperdrix
2010-04-21 10:00 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-21 19:29 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-21 19:52 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-21 20:21 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-21 20:47 ` Jamie Lokier
2010-04-21 20:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-22 0:14 ` Jamie Lokier
2011-01-08 23:24 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-21 10:31 ` skannan at codeaurora.org
2010-04-21 19:33 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2010-04-21 23:47 ` Saravana Kannan
2010-04-23 9:00 ` Pavel Machek
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=ea62885d30e4bbfb84db59758fa9e946.squirrel@www.codeaurora.org \
--to=skannan@codeaurora.org \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).