Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1286385

Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using sleep_range for more than 20ms delay ?

Show all headers | View raw

On Tue, 8 Dec 2015, Aniroop Mathur wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2015 at 12:07 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> > The real question is how precise must your delay be? If the delay
> > needs to be precise within the min/max sleep time limits, then
> > usleep_range() is probably the way to go. If the delay can be
> > imprecise then using msleep() is the right way because that lets the
> > kernel batch timers for power saving purposes.
>
> Thank you for the answer !
> Normally, we insert delays in driver while enabling the chip.
> So here usleep_range seems to service better as we do not want to delay
> the initialisation process of chip and make it ready to generate data,
> especially for faster devices like sensor.

The initialization process is hardly something critical, so why would
the delay need to be precise? What's the point of having data 10ms
earlier?
 
> One last thing,
> Considering HZ=100, would the power saving be same if we set the
> range in usleep_range equivalent to msleep ?
> For example: msleep (33) and usleep_range(33000, 40000)
> So for such case, would both have same impact on power saving ?

Probably, but what's the point of doing that?

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using sleep_range  for more than 20ms delay ? Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com> - 2015-12-07 19:00 +0100
  Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using  sleep_range for more than 20ms delay ? Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-12-07 19:40 +0100
    Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using  sleep_range for more than 20ms delay ? Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 03:50 +0100
      Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using  sleep_range for more than 20ms delay ? Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-12-08 11:50 +0100
        Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using  sleep_range for more than 20ms delay ? Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com> - 2015-12-08 16:40 +0100
          Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using  sleep_range for more than 20ms delay ? Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2015-12-08 21:50 +0100
            Re: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using  sleep_range for more than 20ms delay ? Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com> - 2015-12-09 17:20 +0100

csiph-web