Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt

[Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>]

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>  
> A note on the relaive timer API: There needs to be a way to say
> "x milliseconds from the time this timer should have triggered" instead
> of "x milliseconds from now", to avoid skew in timers that try to be
> strictly periodic.

I disagree.

There should be an _absolute_ interface, and a driver that wants that 
should just have calculated when in time the timeout finishes - and then 
keep on using the absolute value.

Btw, this is exactly why the jiffy-based thing is _good_. The kernel 
timers _are_ absolute, and you make them relative by adding "jiffies".

The fact is, the current timers are better than people give them credit 
for, and converting them away from a jiffies-based interface (to a 
usleep-like one) is STUPID.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with "jiffies", and anybody who thinks 
that

	msleep(20);

is fundamentally better than

	timeout = jiffies + HZ/50;

just doesn't realize that the latter is a bit more complicated exactly 
because the latter is a hell of a lot more POWERFUL. Trying to get rid of 
jiffies for some religious reason is _stupid_.

I have to say, this whole thread has been pretty damn worthless in general 
in my not-so-humble opinion.

		Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/