Subject: Re: Preparing callout(9) for a HZ-less kernel
To: Johnny Billquist <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Bill Stouder-Studenmund <email@example.com>
Date: 10/18/2007 19:33:45
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 03:06:19AM +0200, Johnny Billquist wrote:
> Andrew Doran skrev:
> >On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 11:47:33PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
> >>On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:43:11PM +0100, Andrew Doran wrote:
> > user provides a timeout value
> > enter timed sleep waiting for a condition to become true
> > wake up early, find that the condition is still not true
> > go back to sleep re-using the same timeout value
> >If we pass an absolute wakeup time to the sleep routine then the above w=
> >not sleep longer than requested.
> The ugly thing about absolute time is that it can be affected by time=20
> changes (like you noted), unless we have a guaranteed monotonically=20
> increasing clock for only this purpose, that can't be "changed". I think=
> it's a rather broken scheme if where you can't sleep for a specified time=
> and be sure that it will actually be that much time, independent of if th=
> system time is changed.
I think we'd need (and I think we actually already have or we did have)=20
a monotonic clock for this.
> However, sometimes you also want to sleep until a specific time occurs, i=
> which an absolute time really is preferrable.
> Heck, you probably really would want both. Can we do that?
Yes. It may clutter the interface and developers would need to think about=
which time they were looking at. Taking wall clock time, adding a=20
constant, and passing it to a call wanting monotime won't work. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (NetBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----