[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1485565171-21223-3-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2017 16:59:30 -0800
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>,
David Riley <davidriley@...omium.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] delay: Add explanation of udelay() inaccuracy
From: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
There seems to be some misunderstanding that udelay() and friends will
always guarantee the specified delay. This is a false understanding.
When udelay() is based on CPU cycles, it can return early for many
reasons which are detailed by Linus' reply to me in a thread in 2011:
http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/01/12/372
However, a udelay test module was created in 2014 which allows udelay()
to only be 0.5% fast, which is outside of the CPU-cycles udelay()
results I measured back in 2011, which were deemed to be in the "we
don't care" region.
test_udelay() should be fixed to reflect the real allowable tolerance
on udelay(), rather than 0.5%.
Cc: David Riley <davidriley@...omium.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@...linux.org.uk>
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
---
include/linux/delay.h | 11 +++++++++++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
diff --git a/include/linux/delay.h b/include/linux/delay.h
index a6ecb34..2ecb3c4 100644
--- a/include/linux/delay.h
+++ b/include/linux/delay.h
@@ -5,6 +5,17 @@
* Copyright (C) 1993 Linus Torvalds
*
* Delay routines, using a pre-computed "loops_per_jiffy" value.
+ *
+ * Please note that ndelay(), udelay() and mdelay() may return early for
+ * several reasons:
+ * 1. computed loops_per_jiffy too low (due to the time taken to
+ * execute the timer interrupt.)
+ * 2. cache behaviour affecting the time it takes to execute the
+ * loop function.
+ * 3. CPU clock rate changes.
+ *
+ * Please see this thread:
+ * http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2011/01/09/56
*/
#include <linux/kernel.h>
--
2.7.4
Powered by blists - more mailing lists