Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers

On Wed, 8 Aug 2007 01:16:49 +0200 (CEST)
Roman Zippel <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> > I'd be surprised if there was significant overhead - the maximum frequency
> > at which msleep() can be called is 1000Hz.  We'd need an awful lot of
> > overhead for that to cause problems, surely?
> > 
> > <thinks he's missing something again>
> 
> _Anybody_ has yet to answer what's wrong with adding a nanosleep() and 
> using that instead.
> 

You mean that the implementation could be simplified if msleep() were to
simply call do_nanosleep()?

That would work, although a bit of refactoring would be needed so that we
could implement the TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE msleep() that way.

-
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/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
    • From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>

• References:
  • [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
    • From: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
    • From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: [PATCH] serial inter-character timeout usage with async io
• Next by Date: Re: [PATCH] remove binfmts.h from header exports
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]