lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Jul]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC] Imprecise timers.
On 22-07-08 14:54, Arjan van de Ven wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:19:02 +0200
> Rene Herman <rene.herman@keyaccess.nl> wrote:
>
>> On 22-07-08 05:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>
>>> Many users of timers don't really care too much about exactly when
>>> their timer fires -- and waking a CPU to satisfy such a timer is a
>>> waste of power. This patch implements a 'range' timer which will
>>> fire at a 'convenient' moment within given constraints.
>>>
>>> It's implemented by a deferrable timer at the beginning of the
>>> range, which will run some time later when the CPU happens to be
>>> awake. And a non-deferrable timer at the hard deadline, to ensure
>>> it really does happen by then.
>> Are there actually users for this (not just in theory)? The
>> deferrable timer sort of sounds like all I'd ever want if I, as you
>> say, wouldn't really care...
>
> there's a few; mostly around hardware timeout..For example Stephen want
> it for his drivers.

Hardware I've dealt with is (almost? can't remember anything else)
exlusively minimal delays and as such this thing seemed like perhaps a
bit over-apisized...

> EXT3 journal flushing is another one where we can easily say
> "between 4 and 7 seconds" rather than "exactly at 5"

This a nice-ish example though. It might be considered necessary to make
the current commit delay when set explicitly be the non-deferrable upper
bound but almost none do I guess.

Rene.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-07-22 16:05    [W:0.057 / U:0.536 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site