lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using usleep_range for more than 20ms delay ?
From
On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Clemens Ladisch <clemens@ladisch.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


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-12-08 20:41    [W:0.067 / U:1.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site