[lkml]   [2005]   [Aug]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: FW: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
>From: Roman Zippel []
>On Wed, 31 Aug 2005, Perez-Gonzalez, Inaky wrote:
>> Usefulness: (see the rationale in the patch), but in a nutshell;
>> most POSIX timeout specs have to be absolute in CLOCK_REALTIME
>> (eg: pthread_mutex_timed_lock()). Current kernel needs the timeout
>> relative, so glibc calls the kernel/however gets the time, computes
>> relative times and syscalls. Race conditions, overhead...etc.
>> This mechanism supports both. That's why it is more general.
>Your patch basically only mentions fusyn, why does it need multiple

I cannot produce (top of my head) any other POSIX API calls that
allow you to specify another clock source, but they are there,
somewhere. If I am to introduce a new API, I better make it
flexible enough so that other subsystems can use it for more stuff
other than...

>Why is not sufficient to just add a relative/absolute version,
>which convert the time at entry to kernel time?

...adding more versions that add complexity and duplicate
code in many different places (user-to-kernel copy, syscall entry
points, timespec validation). And the minute you add a clock_id
you can steal some bits for specifying absolute/relative (or vice
versa), so it is almost a win-win situarion.

To summarize: thought about that, but it is fugly and not too practical.

Consider also his allows you to write extensions to POSIX or your
own user-level APIs that could allow (following the fusyn example)
you to wait on a mutex with a timeout based off a monotonic clock,
if you need it (or something that makes more sense than this--highres
comes to mind).

-- Inaky
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: 2005-09-01 01:28    [W:0.058 / U:2.364 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site