[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.10.0902091148520.8503@alien.or.mcafeemobile.com>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:10:23 -0800 (PST)
From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
To: mtk.manpages@...il.com
cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] timerfd extend clockid support
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> > and I did not have even the time to peek
> > into the core timer code to see if the usage of other timer types in
> > eventfd would create problems. That's why I asked Thomas if they'd behave
> > differently from an hrtimer caller POV.
> > I'll try to take a look by myself today or tomorrow.
>
> Okay -- hopefully my test program may be useful (even if it is not
> itself fully tested yet, it's patterned after a similar test program I
> wrote fot the POSIX timers API, so it should mostly work).
Answer was pretty easy once you look at the code :)
Timerfd uses core hrtimer functions, and clockids different from the ones
timerfd already handles, fall into the CPU-timers domain. Domain that is
not handled by hrtimer.
Changes to timerfd to support CPU-based timers are really deep (more than
changes, is a total rewrite). not only to timerfd, but also to CPU-based
timers to deliver notification by means different than signals.
Given the amount of code change, and given that a posix-timers->signalfd
bridge could solve the problem, I'm not going even close to suggest such a
change.
- Davide
--
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