[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160531212302.28502.44995.stgit@bhelgaas-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2016 16:23:02 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] timers: Clarify usleep_range() function comment
Update the usleep_range() function comment to make it clear that it can
only be used in non-atomic context.
Previously we claimed usleep_range() was a drop-in replacement for udelay()
where wakeup is flexible. But that's only true in non-atomic contexts,
where it's possible to sleep instead of delay.
Signed-off-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
---
kernel/time/timer.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/kernel/time/timer.c b/kernel/time/timer.c
index 3a95f97..c024c9f 100644
--- a/kernel/time/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/time/timer.c
@@ -1702,9 +1702,15 @@ static void __sched do_usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
}
/**
- * usleep_range - Drop in replacement for udelay where wakeup is flexible
+ * usleep_range - sleep for an approximate time
* @min: Minimum time in usecs to sleep
* @max: Maximum time in usecs to sleep
+ *
+ * In non-atomic context where the exact wakeup time is flexible, use
+ * usleep_range() instead of udelay(). The sleep improves responsiveness
+ * by avoiding the CPU-hogging busy-wait of udelay(), and the range reduces
+ * power usage by allowing hrtimers to take advantage of an already-
+ * scheduled interrupt instead of scheduling a new one just for this sleep.
*/
void __sched usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
{
Powered by blists - more mailing lists