![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 1998.06.23, Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@twilight.ucw.cz> wrote: > The timestamp - it is needed, so that an application knows in what > order events happened, and what time apart they are. Imagine detecting > a double click with heavily loaded, and swapping machine. It might be > impossible without timestamps. Is this necessarily true? Your specific example of "system under load" really doesn't necessitate timestamping of events. You're supposing that when a system is loaded, it will always immediately process it's I/O events and preempt whatever is currently executing (probably whatever is causing the load at the moment). You may very well be correct, but I have a funny feeling that the way things currently work is that the I/O queues up, and is drained at next chance. In which case, two single-clicks will arrive one after another and appear to be a double-click - I haven't verified this but I'm just guessing. If this *is* the case, then timestamping events in this new protocol will be unnecessary. Also - if the system *did* actually immediately process all input from devices, then a device generating spurious output could starve the rest of the system of cycles. This sounds like a serious problem, which is why I'm guessing the behavior is as I predicted. -Dossy -- URL: http://www.panoptic.com/~dossy -< BORK BORK! >- E-MAIL: dossy@panoptic.com Now I'm who I want to be, where I want to be, doing what I've always said I would and yet I feel I haven't won at all... (Aug 9, 95: Goodbye, JG.) "You should change your .sig; not that the world revolves around me." -s. sadie - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:43 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||