Hi,

a question about which sleeping function should be used in acpi_os_sleep()
started a discussion and examination about the existing documentation and
implementation of functions which insert a sleep/delay.

The result of the discussion was, that the documentation is outdated and
the implemented fsleep() reflects the outdated documentation but doesn't
help to reflect reality which in turns leads to the queue which covers the
following things:

- Split out all timeout and sleep related functions from hrtimer.c and timer.c
  into a separate file

- Update function descriptions of sleep related functions

- Change fsleep() to reflect reality

- Rework all comments or users which obviously rely on the outdated
  documentation as they reference "Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst"

- Last but not least (as there are no more references): Update the outdated
  documentation and move it into a file with a self explaining file name

The queue is available here and applies on top of tip/timers/core:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/anna-maria/linux-devel.git timers/misc

Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
---
Changes in v2:
- change udelay() and ndelay() as suggested by Thomas
- Update some formatting in the new sleep_timeout.c file
- minor typo changes and other small review remarks

Thanks,

        Anna-Maria

---
Anna-Maria Behnsen (15):
      MAINTAINERS: Add missing file include/linux/delay.h
      timers: Move *sleep*() and timeout functions into a separate file
      timers: Update schedule_[hr]timeout*() related function descriptions
      timers: Rename usleep_idle_range() to usleep_range_idle()
      timers: Update function descriptions of sleep/delay related functions
      delay: Rework udelay and ndelay
      timers: Adjust flseep() to reflect reality
      mm/damon/core: Use generic upper bound recommondation for usleep_range()
      timers: Add a warning to usleep_range_state() for wrong order of arguments
      checkpatch: Remove broken sleep/delay related checks
      regulator: core: Use fsleep() to get best sleep mechanism
      iopoll/regmap/phy/snd: Fix comment referencing outdated timer documentation
      powerpc/rtas: Use fsleep() to minimize additional sleep duration
      media: anysee: Fix link to outdated sleep function documentation
      timers/Documentation: Cleanup delay/sleep documentation

 Documentation/dev-tools/checkpatch.rst         |   6 -
 Documentation/timers/delay_sleep_functions.rst | 122 ++++++++
 Documentation/timers/index.rst                 |   2 +-
 Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst          | 115 --------
 MAINTAINERS                                    |   2 +
 arch/powerpc/kernel/rtas.c                     |  21 +-
 drivers/media/usb/dvb-usb-v2/anysee.c          |   6 +-
 drivers/regulator/core.c                       |  47 +---
 include/asm-generic/delay.h                    |  95 +++++--
 include/linux/delay.h                          |  79 ++++--
 include/linux/iopoll.h                         |  52 ++--
 include/linux/phy.h                            |   9 +-
 include/linux/regmap.h                         |  38 +--
 kernel/time/Makefile                           |   2 +-
 kernel/time/hrtimer.c                          | 120 --------
 kernel/time/sleep_timeout.c                    | 376 +++++++++++++++++++++++++
 kernel/time/timer.c                            | 192 -------------
 mm/damon/core.c                                |   5 +-
 scripts/checkpatch.pl                          |  38 ---
 sound/soc/sof/ops.h                            |   8 +-
 20 files changed, 701 insertions(+), 634 deletions(-)

Le 11/09/2024 à 07:13, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> a question about which sleeping function should be used in acpi_os_sleep()
> started a discussion and examination about the existing documentation and
> implementation of functions which insert a sleep/delay.
> 
> The result of the discussion was, that the documentation is outdated and
> the implemented fsleep() reflects the outdated documentation but doesn't
> help to reflect reality which in turns leads to the queue which covers the
> following things:
> 
> - Split out all timeout and sleep related functions from hrtimer.c and timer.c
>    into a separate file
> 
> - Update function descriptions of sleep related functions
> 
> - Change fsleep() to reflect reality
> 
> - Rework all comments or users which obviously rely on the outdated
>    documentation as they reference "Documentation/timers/timers-howto.rst"
> 
> - Last but not least (as there are no more references): Update the outdated
>    documentation and move it into a file with a self explaining file name
> 
> The queue is available here and applies on top of tip/timers/core:
> 
>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/anna-maria/linux-devel.git timers/misc
> 
> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>

Hi,

not directly related to your serie, but some time ago I sent a patch to 
micro-optimize Optimize usleep_range(). (See [1])

The idea is that the 2 parameters of usleep_range() are usually 
constants and some code reordering could easily let the compiler compute 
a few things at compilation time.

There was consensus on the value of the change (see [2]), but as you are 
touching things here, maybe it makes sense now to save a few cycles at 
runtime and a few bytes of code?

CJ

[1]: 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/f0361b83a0a0b549f8ec5ab8134905001a6f2509.1659126514.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/

[2]: 
https://lore.kernel.org/all/03c2bbe795fe4ddcab66eb852bae3715@AcuMS.aculab.com/

On Mon, Sep 16 2024 at 22:20, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 11/09/2024 à 07:13, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
>
> not directly related to your serie, but some time ago I sent a patch to 
> micro-optimize Optimize usleep_range(). (See [1])
>
> The idea is that the 2 parameters of usleep_range() are usually 
> constants and some code reordering could easily let the compiler compute 
> a few things at compilation time.
>
> There was consensus on the value of the change (see [2]), but as you are 
> touching things here, maybe it makes sense now to save a few cycles at 
> runtime and a few bytes of code?

For the price of yet another ugly interface and pushing the
multiplication into the non-constant call sites.

Seriously usleep() is not a hotpath operation and the multiplication is
not even measurable except in micro benchmarks.

Thanks,

        tglx

Le 16/09/2024 à 22:20, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
> Le 11/09/2024 à 07:13, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> a question about which sleeping function should be used in 
>> acpi_os_sleep()
>> started a discussion and examination about the existing documentation and
>> implementation of functions which insert a sleep/delay.
>>
>> The result of the discussion was, that the documentation is outdated and
>> the implemented fsleep() reflects the outdated documentation but doesn't
>> help to reflect reality which in turns leads to the queue which covers 
>> the
>> following things:
>>
>> - Split out all timeout and sleep related functions from hrtimer.c and 
>> timer.c
>>    into a separate file
>>
>> - Update function descriptions of sleep related functions
>>
>> - Change fsleep() to reflect reality
>>
>> - Rework all comments or users which obviously rely on the outdated
>>    documentation as they reference "Documentation/timers/timers- 
>> howto.rst"
>>
>> - Last but not least (as there are no more references): Update the 
>> outdated
>>    documentation and move it into a file with a self explaining file name
>>
>> The queue is available here and applies on top of tip/timers/core:
>>
>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/anna-maria/linux- 
>> devel.git timers/misc
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> not directly related to your serie, but some time ago I sent a patch to 
> micro-optimize Optimize usleep_range(). (See [1])
> 
> The idea is that the 2 parameters of usleep_range() are usually 
> constants and some code reordering could easily let the compiler compute 
> a few things at compilation time.
> 
> There was consensus on the value of the change (see [2]), but as you are 

Typo: there was *no* consensus...

> touching things here, maybe it makes sense now to save a few cycles at 
> runtime and a few bytes of code?
> 
> CJ
> 
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/ 
> f0361b83a0a0b549f8ec5ab8134905001a6f2509.1659126514.git.christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr/
> 
> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/ 
> all/03c2bbe795fe4ddcab66eb852bae3715@AcuMS.aculab.com/
> 
> 
> 
> 

Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr> writes:

> Le 16/09/2024 à 22:20, Christophe JAILLET a écrit :
>> Le 11/09/2024 à 07:13, Anna-Maria Behnsen a écrit :
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> a question about which sleeping function should be used in 
>>> acpi_os_sleep()
>>> started a discussion and examination about the existing documentation and
>>> implementation of functions which insert a sleep/delay.
>>>
>>> The result of the discussion was, that the documentation is outdated and
>>> the implemented fsleep() reflects the outdated documentation but doesn't
>>> help to reflect reality which in turns leads to the queue which covers 
>>> the
>>> following things:
>>>
>>> - Split out all timeout and sleep related functions from hrtimer.c and 
>>> timer.c
>>>    into a separate file
>>>
>>> - Update function descriptions of sleep related functions
>>>
>>> - Change fsleep() to reflect reality
>>>
>>> - Rework all comments or users which obviously rely on the outdated
>>>    documentation as they reference "Documentation/timers/timers- 
>>> howto.rst"
>>>
>>> - Last but not least (as there are no more references): Update the 
>>> outdated
>>>    documentation and move it into a file with a self explaining file name
>>>
>>> The queue is available here and applies on top of tip/timers/core:
>>>
>>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/anna-maria/linux- 
>>> devel.git timers/misc
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anna-Maria Behnsen <anna-maria@linutronix.de>
>> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> not directly related to your serie, but some time ago I sent a patch to 
>> micro-optimize Optimize usleep_range(). (See [1])
>> 
>> The idea is that the 2 parameters of usleep_range() are usually 
>> constants and some code reordering could easily let the compiler compute 
>> a few things at compilation time.
>> 
>> There was consensus on the value of the change (see [2]), but as you are 
>
> Typo: there was *no* consensus...
>
>> touching things here, maybe it makes sense now to save a few cycles at 
>> runtime and a few bytes of code?
>> 

Sorry for the late reply. I'll check it and will come back to you.

Thanks,
	Anna-Maria