Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:58:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:58:09 -0400 Received: from mail.ccur.com ([208.248.32.212]:43277 "EHLO exchange.ccur.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 12 Oct 2002 17:58:07 -0400 Message-ID: <3DA89C29.93F5622E@ccur.com> Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 18:03:21 -0400 From: Jim Houston Reply-To: jim.houston@ccur.com Organization: Concurrent Computer Corp. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.17 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: torvalds@transmeta.com CC: george@mvista.com, high-res-timers-discourse@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] High-res-timers part 2 (x86 platform code) take 5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1721 Lines: 42 >> This patch, in conjunction with the "core" high-res-timers >> patch implements high resolution timers on the i386 >> platforms. > > I really don't get the notion of partial ticks, and quite frankly, this > isn't going into my tree until some major distribution kicks me in the > head and explains to me why the hell we have partial ticks instead of just > making the ticks shorter. > > Linus Hi Linus, Concurrent has been using previous versions of the Posix timers patch in our 2.4.18 based kernel. I like this interface and would like to see it included in your kernel. What would make the patch more acceptable? Would it be acceptable if it used a separate queue for the Posix timers and minimized changes to timer.c? To answer the partial tick question, it's a trade off. If all you need is 1 milli-second resolution, it might not be worth spliting the tick. It's a question of how the overhead to set up a timer compares to the overhead of the higher frequency tick interrupts. If you want micro-second resolution, you need to split the tick. This is important to folks doing control systems. They get excited about timing jitter and resolution. It is also interesting to folks doing games. It's nice to be able to do short delays by blocking rather than having to spin in a delay loop. I'd feel better about this being used for critical applications if the games folks beat it up first. Jim Houston - Concurrent Computer Corp. - 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/