From 0fcb80818bc3ade5befd409051089f710adcf7b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Patrick Pannuto Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2010 15:01:05 -0700 Subject: Documentation: Add timers/timers-howto.txt This file seeks to explain the nuances in various delays; many driver writers are not necessarily familiar with the various kernel timers, their shortfalls, and quirks. When faced with ndelay, udelay, mdelay, usleep_range, msleep, and msleep_interrubtible the question "How do I just wait 1 ms for my hardware to latch?" has the non-intuitive "best" answer: usleep_range(1000,1500) This patch is followed by a series of checkpatch additions that seek to help kernel hackers pick the best delay. Signed-off-by: Patrick Pannuto Cc: apw@canonical.com Cc: corbet@lwn.net Cc: arjan@linux.intel.com Cc: Randy Dunlap Cc: Andrew Morton LKML-Reference: <1280786467-26999-3-git-send-email-ppannuto@codeaurora.org> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner --- Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt | 105 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 105 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt (limited to 'Documentation/timers') diff --git a/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt b/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000000..c9ef29d2ede3 --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt @@ -0,0 +1,105 @@ +delays - Information on the various kernel delay / sleep mechanisms +------------------------------------------------------------------- + +This document seeks to answer the common question: "What is the +RightWay (TM) to insert a delay?" + +This question is most often faced by driver writers who have to +deal with hardware delays and who may not be the most intimately +familiar with the inner workings of the Linux Kernel. + + +Inserting Delays +---------------- + +The first, and most important, question you need to ask is "Is my +code in an atomic context?" This should be followed closely by "Does +it really need to delay in atomic context?" If so... + +ATOMIC CONTEXT: + You must use the *delay family of functions. These + functions use the jiffie estimation of clock speed + and will busy wait for enough loop cycles to achieve + the desired delay: + + ndelay(unsigned long nsecs) + udelay(unsigned long usecs) + mdelay(unsgined long msecs) + + udelay is the generally preferred API; ndelay-level + precision may not actually exist on many non-PC devices. + + mdelay is macro wrapper around udelay, to account for + possible overflow when passing large arguments to udelay. + In general, use of mdelay is discouraged and code should + be refactored to allow for the use of msleep. + +NON-ATOMIC CONTEXT: + You should use the *sleep[_range] family of functions. + There are a few more options here, while any of them may + work correctly, using the "right" sleep function will + help the scheduler, power management, and just make your + driver better :) + + -- Backed by busy-wait loop: + udelay(unsigned long usecs) + -- Backed by hrtimers: + usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max) + -- Backed by jiffies / legacy_timers + msleep(unsigned long msecs) + msleep_interruptible(unsigned long msecs) + + Unlike the *delay family, the underlying mechanism + driving each of these calls varies, thus there are + quirks you should be aware of. + + + SLEEPING FOR "A FEW" USECS ( < ~10us? ): + * Use udelay + + - Why not usleep? + On slower systems, (embedded, OR perhaps a speed- + stepped PC!) the overhead of setting up the hrtimers + for usleep *may* not be worth it. Such an evaluation + will obviously depend on your specific situation, but + it is something to be aware of. + + SLEEPING FOR ~USECS OR SMALL MSECS ( 10us - 20ms): + * Use usleep_range + + - Why not msleep for (1ms - 20ms)? + Explained originally here: + http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/3/250 + msleep(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and + will often sleep longer (~20 ms actual sleep for any + value given in the 1~20ms range). In many cases this + is not the desired behavior. + + - Why is there no "usleep" / What is a good range? + Since usleep_range is built on top of hrtimers, the + wakeup will be very precise (ish), thus a simple + usleep function would likely introduce a large number + of undesired interrupts. + + With the introduction of a range, the scheduler is + free to coalesce your wakeup with any other wakeup + that may have happened for other reasons, or at the + worst case, fire an interrupt for your upper bound. + + The larger a range you supply, the greater a chance + that you will not trigger an interrupt; this should + be balanced with what is an acceptable upper bound on + delay / performance for your specific code path. Exact + tolerances here are very situation specific, thus it + is left to the caller to determine a reasonable range. + + SLEEPING FOR LARGER MSECS ( 10ms+ ) + * Use msleep or possibly msleep_interruptible + + - What's the difference? + msleep sets the current task to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE + whereas msleep_interruptible sets the current task to + TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE before scheduling the sleep. In + short, the difference is whether the sleep can be ended + early by a signal. In general, just use msleep unless + you know you have a need for the interruptible variant. -- cgit v1.2.3