linux-kernel - [PATCH 3/3] [ARM] Implement a timer based _

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1283574514-8070-4-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Fri,  3 Sep 2010 21:28:34 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Cc:	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...prootsystems.com>,
	Shilimkar@...r.kernel.org, Santosh <santosh.shilimkar@...com>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] [ARM] Implement a timer based __delay() loop

udelay() can be incorrect on SMP machines that scale their CPU
frequencies independently of one another (as pointed out here
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/977567). The delay
loop can either be too fast or too slow depending on which CPU the
loops_per_jiffy counter is calibrated on and which CPU the delay
loop is running on. udelay() can also be incorrect if the
CPU frequency switches during the __delay() loop, causing the loop
to either terminate too early, or too late. 

We'd rather not fix udelay() by forcing it to run on one CPU or
take the penalty of a rather large loops_per_jiffy being used in
udelay() when the CPU is actually running slower. Instead we
solve the problem by making __delay() into a timer based loop
which should be unaffected by CPU frequency scaling. Therefore,
implement a timer based __delay() loop which can be used in place
of the current register based __delay() if a machine so chooses.

The kernel is already prepared for a timer based approach
(evident by the read_current_timer() function). If an arch
implements read_current_timer(), calibrate_delay() will use a
timer based function, calibrate_delay_direct(), to calculate
loops_per_jiffy (in which case loops_per_jiffy should really be
renamed to timer_ticks_per_jiffy). Since the loops_per_jiffy will
be based on timer ticks, __delay() should be implemented as a
loop around read_current_timer().

Doing this makes the expensive loops_per_jiffy calculation go
away (saving ~150ms on boot time on my machine) and fixes
udelay() by making it safe in the face of independently scaling
CPUs. The only prerequisite is that read_current_timer() is
monotonically increasing across calls (and doesn't overflow
within ~2000us).

There is a downside to this approach though. BogoMIPS is no
longer "accurate" in that it reflects the BogoMIPS of the timer
and not the CPU. On most SoC's the timer isn't running anywhere
near as fast as the CPU so BogoMIPS will be ridiculously low (my
timer runs at 4.8 MHz and thus my BogoMIPS is 9.6 compared to my
CPU's 800). This shouldn't be too much of a concern though since
BogoMIPS are bogus anyway (hence the name).

This loop is pretty much a copy of AVR's version made more generic.

Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
Reviewed-by: Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>
---
 arch/arm/include/asm/delay.h |    1 +
 arch/arm/lib/delay.c         |   18 ++++++++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/delay.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/delay.h
index 7c732b5..5c6b9a3 100644
--- a/arch/arm/include/asm/delay.h
+++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/delay.h
@@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ extern void __const_udelay(unsigned long);
 	  __udelay(n))
 
 extern void set_delay_fn(void (*fn)(unsigned long));
+extern void read_current_timer_delay_loop(unsigned long loops);
 
 #endif /* defined(_ARM_DELAY_H) */
 
diff --git a/arch/arm/lib/delay.c b/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
index b307fcc..59fdf64 100644
--- a/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
+++ b/arch/arm/lib/delay.c
@@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
  *  Copyright (c) 2010, Code Aurora Forum. All rights reserved.
  *  Copyright (C) 1993 Linus Torvalds
  *  Copyright (C) 1997 Martin Mares <mj@...ey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
+ *  Copyright (C) 2005-2006 Atmel Corporation
  *
  * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
  * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2 as
@@ -12,6 +13,7 @@
  */
 #include <linux/module.h>
 #include <linux/delay.h>
+#include <linux/timex.h>
 
 /*
  * Oh, if only we had a cycle counter...
@@ -26,6 +28,22 @@ void delay_loop(unsigned long loops)
 	);
 }
 
+#ifdef ARCH_HAS_READ_CURRENT_TIMER
+/*
+ * Assuming read_current_timer() is monotonically increasing
+ * across calls.
+ */
+void read_current_timer_delay_loop(unsigned long loops)
+{
+	unsigned long bclock, now;
+
+	read_current_timer(&bclock);
+	do {
+		read_current_timer(&now);
+	} while ((now - bclock) < loops);
+}
+#endif
+
 static void (*delay_fn)(unsigned long) = delay_loop;
 
 void set_delay_fn(void (*fn)(unsigned long))
-- 
Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/