[lkml]   [2002]   [Jul]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 'select' failure or signal should not update timeout
    Rusty Russell wrote:
    > On Wed, 24 Jul 2002 11:48:10 -0700 (PDT)
    > Linus Torvalds <> wrote:
    > > The thing is, we cannot change existing select semantics, and the
    > > question is whether what most soft-realtime wants is actually select, or
    > > whether people really want a "waittimeofday()".
    > NOT waittimeofday. You need a *new* measure which can't be set forwards
    > or back if you want this to be sane. pthreads has absolute timeouts (eg.
    > pthread_cond_timedwait), but they suck IRL for this reason.
    > Of course, doesn't need any correlation with absolute time, it could be a
    > "microseconds since boot" kind of thing.
    The POSIX clocks & timers API defines CLOCK_MONOTONIC for
    this sort of thing (CLOCK_MONOTONIC can not be set). It
    also defines an API for clock_nanosleep() that CAN use an
    absolute time which is supposed to follow any clock setting
    that is done. Combine the two and you have a fixed time

    AND, guess what, the high-res-timers patch does all this and
    George Anzinger
    Real time sched:
    Preemption patch:
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:27    [W:0.025 / U:8.832 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site