MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 23:20:08 +0530
Message-ID: <CADYu30-ZfRR5N7L6Azu5AwNRibnKViDN2dHrHeKbhdKAFvLW=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Ques: [kernel/time/*] Is there any disadvantage in using sleep_range
 for more than 20ms delay ?
From: Aniroop Mathur <aniroop.mathur@gmail.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: a.mathur@samsung.com,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1417
Lines: 35

Dear Mr. John and Mr. Thomas,
Greetings of the day !!

This is Aniroop Mathur working on sensor kernel drivers for last 3 years.
Recently, In my driver code, I have been changing msleep to usleep_range.
But I got stuck at one point and could not find proper answer on internet.
Could you please help to answer my query as mentioned below ?

>From the kernel documentation, I understood that it is better to use
usleep_range
for 10 us - 20 ms delay. For delays 10ms+, it is mentioned to use msleep.

If my understanding is right and considering HZ=100,
Even for 33 ms delay, msleep would sleep for 40 ms, while usleep_range
would sleep for 33 ms as desired.
And for 40 ms delay, msleep and usleep_range both will wake up at desired time.
Right ?

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 if there could be some problem in
using usleep_range for higher delay values ?

Thanks in advance !

Regards,
Aniroop Mathur
--
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/