From: "Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Organization: Universitaet Regensburg, Klinikum
To: jim.houston@ccur.com
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 08:50:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] High-res-timers part 2 (x86 platform code) take 5.1
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Message-ID: <3DAA8571.5439.26F0B5@localhost>
In-reply-to: <3DA89C29.93F5622E@ccur.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1467
Lines: 43

On 12 Oct 2002, at 18:03, Jim Houston wrote:

> 
> >> 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.

Hi,

I think nobody objects seeing the interface implemented. Maybe just how 
it's implemented. I did not have a close look, but the concept seems 
odd at first sight.

Using a individial timer as interrupt source may be a different idea 
(if avaliable for the particular hardware), but the there must be a 
balance between busy looping in the kernel and setting up of such an 
individual interrupt.

The other thing is how to correlate it with the wall clock.

Sorry for not giving answers, I just know the problems...

Regards,
Ulrich

-
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/