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/
[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]
