On 5/17/05, Lee Revell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?
>From my meager understanding of sys_nanosleep() in 2.6 -- we'd round
up currently, If you request a microsecond of sleep, we'll sleep for a
jiffy + 1 (or 2, maybe). I am not sure we want a syscall that allows
busy-waiting, but I'm not certain. If you're interesting, my patch
(just posted again to LKML) tries to divorce HZ and soft-timers
somewhat.
-Nish
-
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]
