lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
Date
On Sep 1, 2005, at 11:18:52, Roman Zippel wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005, Joe Korty wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 11:19:51AM +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
>>> You still didn't explain what's the point in choosing
>>> different clock sources for a _timeout_.
>>
>> Well, if CLOCK_REALTIME is set forward by a minute,
>> timers & timeout specified against that clock will expire
>> a minute earlier than expected.
>
> That just rather suggests that the pthread API is broken as usual.
> (No other possible user was mentioned so far.)

How about a hypothetical time-based event daemon. I want to run
some jobs every 10 minutes that the system is running (not off or
suspended), I want to run other jobs every hour in real time, and
if one such timer expires while suspended, I want to run it
immediately to catch up. The first suggests CLOCK_MONOTONIC, and
the second works better with CLOCK_REALTIME.

> So in practice it's easier to advance CLOCK_MONOTONIC/CLOCK_REALTIME
> equally and only apply time jumps to CLOCK_REALTIME.

I thought that's what he said, but maybe I'm just confused :-D.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming
-- C.A.R. Hoare



-
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: 2005-09-01 23:23    [W:0.736 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site