[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 00/11] sched: CFS low-latency features
On Fri, 27 Aug 2010, Mathieu Desnoyers wrote:
> * Paul E. McKenney ( wrote:
> > Why couldn't the timer_create() call record the start time, and then
> > compute the sleeps from that time? So if timer_create() executed at
> > time t=100 and the period is 5, upon awakening and completing the first
> > invocation of the function in question, the thread does a sleep calculated
> > to wake at t=110.
> Let's focus on the userspace thread execution, right between the samping of the
> current time and the call to sleep:
> Thread A
> current_time = read current time();
> sleep(period_end - current_time);
> If the thread is preempted between these two operations, then we end up sleeping
> for longer than what is needed. This kind of imprecision will add up over time,
> so that after e.g. one day, instead of having the expected number of timer
> executions, we'll have less than that. This kind of accumulated drift is an
> unwanted side-effect of using delays in lieue of real periodic timers.

Nonsense, that's why we provide clock_nanosleep(ABSTIME)



 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-27 17:25    [W:0.059 / U:9.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site