Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:04:46 +0200 (CEST)
From: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>
To: linux@horizon.com
cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH]  ktimers subsystem 2.6.14-rc2-kt5
In-Reply-To: <20051017183834.32695.qmail@science.horizon.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0510172050460.1386@scrub.home>
References: <20051017183834.32695.qmail@science.horizon.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1120
Lines: 27

Hi,

On Mon, 17 Oct 2005 linux@horizon.com wrote:

> > - "timer API" vs "timeout API": I got absolutely no acknowlegement that 
> > this might be a little confusing and in consequence "process timer" may be 
> > a better name.
> 
> I have to disagree.  Once you grasp the desirability of having two kinds
> of timers, one optimized for the case where it does expire, and one
> optimized for the case where it is aborted or rescheduled before its
> expiration time, the timer/timeout terminology seems quite intuitive
> to me.

Thank you, that's exactly the confusion, I'd like to avoid.

The main difference is in their possible resolution: kernel timer are a 
low resolution, low overhead timer optimized for kernel needs and process 
timer have a larger resolution mainly for applications, but this also 
implies a larger overhead (i.e. more expensive locking).

bye, Roman
-
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/