Re: [PATCH] PATCH: add framework for ndelay (nanoseconds)

[Ivan Kokshaysky <ink@jurassic.park.msu.ru>]

On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 03:34:31PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Feb 2003, Linux Kernel Mailing List wrote:
> > ChangeSet 1.953.4.9, 2003/02/02 02:44:15-02:00, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk
> > 
> > 	[PATCH] PATCH: add framework for ndelay (nanoseconds)
> > 	
> > +void __ndelay(unsigned long usecs)
>                                ^^^^^
> > +{
> > +	__const_udelay(usecs * 0x00005);  /* 2**32 / 1000000000 (rounded up) */
>                        ^^^^^
> > +}
> 
> Wouldn't it make more sense to call the parameter `nsecs' (or `ns')?

There are more serious problems with this implementation:
1) It's *very* imprecise. Even on an 1 GHz CPU and with HZ = 100 precision
   is ~86 nsec. With HZ = 1000 it's almost unusable on *any* CPU.
2) Additional delay caused by integer multiplication, cache misses
   and so on may be large enough, especially on older processors.
   On 233 MHz PII it's 600-700 nsec (perfectly repeatable), on 600 MHz
   alpha ev56 - 200-300 nsec.

As of current 2.4, there is the only user of ndelay() - ide_execute_command()
that calls ndelay(400). Why udelay(1) cannot be used instead?

Ivan.