[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1186170407.3153.8.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:46:46 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers
On Fri, 2007-08-03 at 21:19 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
>
> > Most comments last time were favorable. The one dissenter was Roman,
> > who worries about the overhead of using hrtimers for this operation; my
> > understanding is that he would rather see a really_msleep() function for
> > those who actually want millisecond resolution. I'm not sure how to
> > characterize what the cost could be, but it can only be buried by the
> > fact that every call sleeps for some number of milliseconds. On my
> > system, the several hundred total msleep() calls can't cause any real
> > overhead, and almost all happen at initialization time.
>
> The main point is still that these are two _different_ APIs for different
> usages, so I still prefer to add a hrsleep() instead.
I would actually prefer it the other way around; call the
not-so-accurate one "msleep_approx()" or somesuch, to make it explicit
that the sleep is only approximate...
-
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