Message-ID: <428E8AEF.9030609@mvista.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 18:12:15 -0700
From: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Reply-To: george@mvista.com
Organization: MontaVista Software
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050323 Fedora/1.7.6-1.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de>
CC: joe.korty@ccur.com, robustmutexes@lists.osdl.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] A more general timeout specification
References: <20050518201517.GA16193@tsunami.ccur.com> <m1hdh0yu14.fsf@muc.de> <428CC6B5.3070206@mvista.com> <20050520190550.GB57598@muc.de>
In-Reply-To: <20050520190550.GB57598@muc.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1024
Lines: 25

Andi Kleen wrote:
>>I think the accepted and standard way to do this is to use different 
>>"clock"s. For example, in the HRT patch the clocks CLOCK_REALTIME_HR and 
>>CLOCK_MONOTONIC_HR are defined as high resolution clocks.
> 
> 
> Note precision here can be fairly long - some timers dont even
> if they run a minute earlier or later or even longer. For others
> it can be rather small.
> 
> I dont think you want own clocks for all possible numbers. It makes
> much more sense to give a numerical time offset.

That may be, but you will have a hard time finding a standard confroming way to 
pass that info into the kernel.  A few well chosen points should do it...

>
-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
-
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/