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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox