Hi,
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Let's assume a get_time() which simply returns xtime and so has a
> > resolution of around TICK_NSEC. This means the real time when one
> > calls get_time() is somewhere between xtime and xtime+TICK_NSEC.
> > Assuming the real time is xtime+TICK_NSEC-1, get_time() will return
> > xtime and a relative timer with TICK_NSEC-1 will expire immediately.
>
> i agree that on systems where get_time() has a TICK_NSEC resolution,
> such short timeouts are bad.
>
> i dont agree with the fix though: it penalizes platforms where
> ->get_time() resolution is sane.
How do you want to tell one from the other?
Can we agree, that this is the behaviour 2.6 currently already has anyway?
I fully agree, that this patch is not the best solution, but is it really
such a problem that we can't postpone the behaviour change for a short
while until we can fix it properly (i.e. via a proper clock framework)?
bye, Roman
-
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]
