[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201203091437.50996.tvrtko.ursulin@onelan.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 14:37:50 +0000
From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@...lan.co.uk>
To: x86@...nel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: udelay minimum delay guarantee and maximum supported delay?
Hi all,
I was debugging some weird driver behaviour under 3.3.0-rc6+ (amd64) and
eventually I got to discovering udelay's driver is issuing are occasionally
short. That results in random hardware behaviour, but that is beside the
point.
Driver in question wants to delay for 500us at a time, which is not a terribly
nice thing to do, but putting that aside and talking more in general I would
have three questions:
1. Are 500us udelays supposed to work? (I know they are not recommended and
I'll fix that.)
2. Should udelay guarantee it won't delay by less than the time asked?
3. Is ktime_get() considered accurate enough to measure how long udelay
actually delayed? (Empirical evidence suggests it is, because hardware
weirdness correlates perfectly with occurences of these short udelays.)
If answers to all are yes then we might have a bug here.
Because I am seeing udelay(500) (_occasionally_) being short, and that by
delaying for some duration between 0us (yep) and 491us.
As far as I can see this box is using TSC delay and CPU (Intel(R) Core(TM)
i5-2400S CPU @ 2.50GH) exposes the constant_tsc flag:
[ 1.717050] Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 2494.334 MHz.
[ 1.717054] Switching to clocksource tsc
Am I missing something and what are your opinions?
Thanks,
Tvrtko
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists