delay: Add explanation of udelay() inaccuracy
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@chromium.org> Cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> Signed-off-by: Russell King <rmk+kernel@armlinux.org.uk> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
This commit is contained in:
parent
40d9f82750
commit
9f8197980d
|
@ -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>
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue