[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <530D5715.1050901@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 18:53:09 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Alexey Perevalov <a.perevalov@...sung.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
john.stultz@...aro.org
CC: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>, kyungmin.park@...sung.com,
cw00.choi@...sung.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
Anton Vorontsov <anton.vorontsov@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers
On 02/20/2014 08:23 AM, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> From: Anton Vorontsov <anton@...msg.org>
>
> This patch implements a userland-side API for generic deferrable timers,
> per linux/timer.h:
>
> * A deferrable timer will work normally when the system is busy, but
> * will not cause a CPU to come out of idle just to service it; instead,
> * the timer will be serviced when the CPU eventually wakes up with a
> * subsequent non-deferrable timer.
>
> These timers are crucial for power saving, i.e. periodic tasks that want
> to work in background when the system is under use, but don't want to
> cause wakeups themselves.
Please don't. This API sucks for all kinds of reasons:
- Why is it a new kind of clock?
- How deferrable is deferrable?
- It adds new core code, which serves no purpose (the problem is
already solved).
On the other hand, if you added a fancier version of timerfd_settime
that could explicitly set the slack value (or, equivalently, the
earliest and latest allowable times), that could be quite useful.
It's often bugged me that timer slack is per-process.
--Andy
--
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