lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jun]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?
From
Date
On Sat, 2004-06-05 at 08:23, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > However I've started to see some problems w/ 2.6 and USB on x440/x445s,
> > both of which use the 100Mhz cyclone time source. Further digging has
> > pointed to the fact that certain important udelay()s in the USB
> > subsystem aren't actually waiting long enough.
>
> Certain? AFAICS _no_ call to a delay routine actually passed a big enough
> argument. Or am I missing something? Also, __ndelay seems to be affected
> as well: it returns zero for 550 nsec even for the TSC variant in your
> test.c.

Indeed its likely.

> > So I'm no math wiz. What's the proper fix here?
>
> Below are three changes I'd like to discuss. I'll build a fresh kernel with
> all three changes enabled + PM_TIMER soon.

Ah, your test output is a bit confusing (changes to __const_udealy
affect the output of my_udelay), but I think I understand it. Forgive me
if I miss-interpret.

> Change 1:
>
> Move the multiplication with HZ up into the mull instruction:
>
> unsigned long __const_udelay(unsigned long xloops)
> {
> int d0;
> __asm__("mull %0"
> :"=d" (xloops), "=&a" (d0)
> :"1" (xloops),"0" (LPJ * HZ));
> return __delay(xloops);
> }

This does make a good bit of difference! Good catch!


> Change 2:
>
> Round up in __udelay. While it can be argued that some time is also
> spent in the delay functions, it's better to spend _at least_ the specified
> time sleeping, in my humble opinion.
>
>
> - return __const_udelay2(usecs * 0x000010c6); /* 2**32 / 1000000 */
> + return __const_udelay2(usecs * 0x000010c7); /* 2**32 / 1000000 (rounded up)*/
>

This change looks right to me.


> Change 3:
>
> Asserting at least 1 loop is spent: in really small ndelay() calls to
> low-mhz timers, this might be better.
>
> return __delay(xloops ? xloops : 1);

I agree w/ Pavel that rounding up sounds better, but I can't get the
math to work, so this may be the best solution.

I'm also spinning up a patch w/ these changes to test, let me know how
your testing went and I'll do the same.
-john


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans