On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 17:55 -0700, christoph wrote:
>
> Runtime? That seems to be a bad idea. It would be better to rewrite
> the timer subsystem to be able to work tickless.
>
I agree 100%, I think it's especially crazy to allow selecting 100, 250,
500, etc, whether at runtime or compile time. Might as well just go
tickless.
How do you expect application developers to handle not being able to
count on the resolution of nanosleep()? Currently they can at least
assume 10ms on 2.4, 1ms on 2.6. Seems to me that if you are no longer
guaranteed to be able to sleep 5ms on 2.6, you would just have to
busywait. Is it me, or does that way lie madness?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
