[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
    On 5/17/05, Lee Revell <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 2005-05-16 at 17:55 -0700, christoph wrote:
    > >
    > > Runtime? That seems to be a bad idea. It would be better to rewrite
    > > the timer subsystem to be able to work tickless.
    > >
    > I agree 100%, I think it's especially crazy to allow selecting 100, 250,
    > 500, etc, whether at runtime or compile time. Might as well just go
    > tickless.
    > How do you expect application developers to handle not being able to
    > count on the resolution of nanosleep()? Currently they can at least
    > assume 10ms on 2.4, 1ms on 2.6. Seems to me that if you are no longer
    > guaranteed to be able to sleep 5ms on 2.6, you would just have to
    > busywait. Is it me, or does that way lie madness?

    From my meager understanding of sys_nanosleep() in 2.6 -- we'd round
    up currently, If you request a microsecond of sleep, we'll sleep for a
    jiffy + 1 (or 2, maybe). I am not sure we want a syscall that allows
    busy-waiting, but I'm not certain. If you're interesting, my patch
    (just posted again to LKML) tries to divorce HZ and soft-timers

    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: 2005-05-18 02:02    [W:0.031 / U:9.700 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site