[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1a297b360708060320m2e9aa419n1f043fb18d987850@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2007 14:20:10 +0400
From: "Manu Abraham" <abraham.manu@...il.com>
To: "Roman Zippel" <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
"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 8/6/07, Roman Zippel <zippel@...ux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
>
> > > There's no problem to provide a high resolution sleep, but there is also
> > > no reason to mess with msleep, don't fix what ain't broken...
> >
> > John Corbet provided the patch because he had a problem with the current
> > msleep... in that it didn't provide as good a common case as he
> > wanted... so I think your statement is wrong ;)
>
> Only under the assumptation, that msleep _must_ be "fixed" for all other
> current users too.
> Give users a choice to use msleep or nanosleep, how do you know what's
> "best" for them?
>
You mean to say, the granularity of msleep is in mS with a tolerance
of +/- "n" mS whereas nanosleep would have the tolerance in nS ?
(ignoring all the discussions about hrtimers and their internal
design)
I guess many people are/were confused on the aspect that, a msleep(1)
meant sleep for a 1mS and nothing more. Well, this would explain, some
of my hair raising incidents, if i understood you correctly.
Since it is such a confusion, maybe it needs to be documented some
place, that people don't fall into the same trap.
Manu
-
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