On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 14:45 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > So, let me ask a direct question: What do you think is specifically
> > wrong about changing the msleep() implementation as is done here? The
> > behavior is clearly an improvement, so what is your objection on the
> > flipside?
>
> Again, we have two different timer APIs for a reason
yes because we have different usage patterns for timers. (exact/course
or expiring/not-typically-expiring; I know you have some other opinion
here than other people).
For this case it's relatively simple imo: The existing implementation
has a *typical* behavior which is 100% to 2000% worse than what the user
of the API asks for. And that is totally unneeded to be so crappy; it
can be much more exact easily as shown by this patch.
You keep claiming that hrtimers are so incredibly expensive; but for
msleep()... which is mostly called during driver init ... I really don't
buy that it's really expensive. We're not doing this a gazilion times
per second obviously...
--
if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com
Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org
-
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]
