I have a kernel thread which is assigned on a specific CPU with FIFO and highest priority. This thread sleeps from time to time but the time interval must be as precise as possible. So with this in mind what would be the most precise way to sleep in the kernel space?
The sleep service puts the calling kernel thread to sleep, causing it to wait for a wakeup to be issued for the channel specified by the chan parameter.
/bin/sleep is Linux or Unix command to delay for a specified amount of time. You can suspend the calling shell script for a specified time. For example, pause for 10 seconds or stop execution for 2 mintues. In other words, the sleep command pauses the execution on the next shell command for a given time.
Sleep states are global low-power states of the entire system in which user space code cannot be executed and the overall system activity is significantly reduced.
The sleep() function shall cause the calling thread to be suspended from execution until either the number of realtime seconds specified by the argument seconds has elapsed or a signal is delivered to the calling thread and its action is to invoke a signal-catching function or to terminate the process.
Here is a related excerpt from Documentation/timers/timers-howto.txt:
NON-ATOMIC CONTEXT:
You should use the
*sleep[_range]
family of functions. There are a few more options here, while any of them may work correctly, using the "right" sleep function will help the scheduler, power management, and just make your driver better :)
- Backed by busy-wait loop:
udelay(unsigned long usecs)
- Backed by hrtimers:
usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max)
- Backed by jiffies / legacy_timers
msleep(unsigned long msecs)
msleep_interruptible(unsigned long msecs)
Unlike the
*delay
family, the underlying mechanism driving each of these calls varies, thus there are quirks you should be aware of.SLEEPING FOR "A FEW" USECS ( < ~10us? )
- Use
udelay
- Why not
usleep
?
On slower systems, (embedded, OR perhaps a speed-stepped PC!) the overhead of setting up the hrtimers forusleep
may not be worth it. Such an evaluation will obviously depend on your specific situation, but it is something to be aware of.SLEEPING FOR ~USECS OR SMALL MSECS ( 10us - 20ms):
- Use
usleep_range
- Why not
msleep
for (1ms - 20ms)?
Explained originally here:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/8/3/250msleep
(1~20) may not do what the caller intends, and will often sleep longer (~20 ms actual sleep for any value given in the 1~20ms range). In many cases this is not the desired behavior.
- Why is there no
usleep
/ What is a good range?
Sinceusleep_range
is built on top of hrtimers, the wakeup will be very precise (ish), thus a simpleusleep
function would likely introduce a large number of undesired interrupts.
With the introduction of a range, the scheduler is free to coalesce your wakeup with any other wakeup that may have happened for other reasons, or at the worst case, fire an interrupt for your upper bound.
The larger a range you supply, the greater a chance that you will not trigger an interrupt; this should be balanced with what is an acceptable upper bound on delay / performance for your specific code path. Exact tolerances here are very situation specific, thus it is left to the caller to determine a reasonable range.SLEEPING FOR LARGER MSECS ( 10ms+ )
- Use
msleep
or possiblymsleep_interruptible
- What's the difference?
msleep
sets the current task toTASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE
whereasmsleep_interruptible
sets the current task toTASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
before scheduling the sleep. In short, the difference is whether the sleep can be ended early by a signal. In general, just usemsleep
unless you know you have a need for the interruptible variant.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With