Hi, On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Guenter Roeck <li...@roeck-us.net> wrote: > drivers/iio/accel/kxcjk-1013.c: kxcjk1013_runtime_resume() > drivers/iio/accel/bmc150-accel-core.c:bmc150_accel_runtime_resume() > drivers/iio/accel/mma8452.c:mma8452_runtime_resume() > drivers/iio/accel/mma9551_core.c:mma9551_sleep()
As far as I can tell these drivers will not suffer unduly from my change. Worse case they will delay 20us more, which is listed as the max. Also note that I assume the reason you flagged these is because they follow the pattern: if (sleep_val < 20000) usleep_range(sleep_val, 20000); else msleep_interruptible(sleep_val/1000); I will note that usleep_range() is and has always been uninterruptible, since the implementation says: void __sched usleep_range(unsigned long min, unsigned long max) { __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE); do_usleep_range(min, max); } So I'm not at all convinced that we are changing behavior here. The "interruptible" vs. "uninterruptible" affects whether signals can interrupt the sleep, not whether a random wake up of a task can. What we really need to know is if they are affected by a wakeup. > kernel/trace/ring_buffer.c:rb_test() I assume that the person who wrote this code was confused since they wrote: set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE); /* Now sleep between a min of 100-300us and a max of 1ms */ usleep_range(((data->cnt % 3) + 1) * 100, 1000); That doesn't seem to make sense given the first line of usleep_range(). In any case, again I don't think I am changing behavior. > A possible solution might be to introduce usleep_range_interruptible() > and use it there. This could be a useful function, but I don't think we need it if we find someone who needs a wakeup to cut short a sleep. We can just call one of the schedule functions directly and use a timeout. Thank you for searching through for stuff and for your review, though! -Doug