![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Sunday 13 November 2005 08:32, Ingo Molnar wrote: > there are 3 "generic" components needed right now to clean up all time > related stuff: GTOD, ktimers and clockevents. [you know the first two, > and clockevents is new code from Thomas Gleixner that generalizes timer > interrupts and introduces one compact notion for 'clock chips'.] Both noidletick and the per cpu gettimeofday change significantly how timer interrupts work. I hope your generalizations will be still compatible to that. It's a bit dangerous to generalize before things have their final shape. Also vsyscalls make it all more difficult, because they don't map very well to any kind of "timer drivers". > what is the point? Ontop of these, a previously difficult feature, High > Resolution Timers became _massively_ simpler. All of these patches exist > together in the -rt tree, so it's not handwaving. The same will be the > case for idle ticks / dynamic ticks [we started with HRT because it is > so much harder than idle ticks]. So i do agree with you that GTOD needs > more work, but it also makes time related features all that much easier. > > right now it's GTOD that needs the most work before it can be merged > upstream, so you picked the right one to criticise :-) My point was basically that there is a lot of feature work going on on x86-64 in this area, and that has priority over any "cleanups" like this from my side. If it has settled again later maybe it can be generalized, or maybe not. I will only do it if it truly makes the code cleaner in the end, just lots of indirect pointers by itself isn't necessarily something that does this. -Andi - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2005-11-13 11:11 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||