Messages in this thread | | | From | Kyle Moffett <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] A more general timeout specification | Date | Thu, 1 Sep 2005 17:20:51 -0400 |
| |
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/
| |