[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070312143118.GA27993@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 15:31:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Roland McGrath <roland@...hat.com>, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
mm-commits@...r.kernel.org, npiggin@...e.de, drepper@...hat.com,
oleg@...sign.ru, sebastien.dugue@...l.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch] change futex_wait() to hrtimers
* Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu> wrote:
> What we probably need in the long-term, and not just for high
> precision wakeups, is we need a way for waiters (either in the kernel
> or in userspace) to specify a desired precision in their timers. Is
> it, "wake me up in a second, exactly", or "wake me up in a second,
> plus or minus 10ms"? (or 50ms? or 100ms?).
such a facility exists already, see round_jiffies() and
round_jiffies_relative(). There's some short blurb about it at:
http://kernelnewbies.org/LinuxChanges#head-513ceda14f5d8cf5b8a7c81d7e3821543141ecb0
> This becomes especially important if we want the tickless code to
> really shine as far as power management is concerned. [...]
yes. That's why we also implemented /proc/timer_stat, and this was
measured and a few higher-frequency fuzzy waiters were converted to use
round_jiffies(). Some other waiters were fixed in user-space. It's all
dependent on actual measurements and circumstances.
Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists