linux-kernel - Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using usleep

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Wed, 9 Dec 2015 00:51:06 +0530
From:	Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@...il.com>
To:	Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>
Cc:	John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, a.mathur@...sung.com,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using
 usleep_range for more than 20ms delay ?

On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de> wrote:
> Aniroop Mathur wrote:
>> As in the kernel documentation, it is mentioned to use msleep for
>> 10ms+ delay, I am confused whether there would be any disadvantage in
>> using usleep_range for higher delays values because normally drivers
>> have variety of delays used (2, 10, 20, 40, 100, 500 ms).
>>
>> So, could you please help to confirm that if we use usleep_range for
>> inserting delays greater than 20 ms, would it be harmful or beneficial
>> or does not make any difference at all ?
>
> As the documentation told you, usleep_range() is likely to require
> a separate interrupt, while msleep() is likely to round to some other,
> already-scheduled interrupt.  The former is possibly harmful regarding
> CPU and power usage; you have to balance it against your need for
> accuracy.
>

Thank you for the answer!
usleep_range will generate an interrupt to achieve accuracy.
However, would that be considered as harmful or a disadvantage ?
Would the power usage and cpu really substantial ?

PS: I have added my more concern and explanation in another email
thread whose subject misses u in usleep_range, by mistake. Added
you in it as well.

> (And usleep_range() has a 32-bit nanosecond limit on 32-bit
> architectures.)
>
>
> Regards,
> Clemens
--
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/