Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932564AbVLAX4k (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:56:40 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932565AbVLAX4k (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:56:40 -0500 Received: from 213-239-205-147.clients.your-server.de ([213.239.205.147]:5038 "EHLO mail.tglx.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932564AbVLAX4j (ORCPT ); Thu, 1 Dec 2005 18:56:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [patch 00/43] ktimer reworked From: Thomas Gleixner Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Kyle Moffett , Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk, ray-gmail@madrabbit.org, zippel@linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, george@mvista.com, johnstul@us.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20051201221553.GA19135@infradead.org> References: <1133395019.32542.443.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <23CA09D3-4C11-4A4B-A5C6-3C38FA9C203D@mac.com> <2c0942db0512010822x1ae20622obf224ce9728e83f8@mail.gmail.com> <20051201165144.GC31551@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20051201122455.4546d1da.akpm@osdl.org> <20051201211933.GA25142@elte.hu> <20051201135139.3d1c10df.akpm@osdl.org> <7D53372C-E138-4336-883F-A674BBBB09AA@mac.com> <20051201221553.GA19135@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: linutronix Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:02:19 +0100 Message-Id: <1133481739.10478.54.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1914 Lines: 42 On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 22:15 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:13:17PM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: > > In this patch there are two ways of setting up code to run at some > > point in the future: timers and timeouts. > > > > A timeout (like waiting for somebody to answer the phone) is > > optimized to never happen (they will hopefully pick up first). If > > everything works perfectly; it will be stopped before it has a chance > > to go off. > > > > A timer (like a kitchen timer telling you the cookies are done) is > > optimized to be added and sit around until it expires. You just > > don't turn off the timer and take the cookies out before they are done. > > Heh, in my dumb non-native speaker mind I'd expectit the other way around, > as in a timeout is expected to time out :) and a timer is expect to happen, > as in say the timer the tells you your breakfast egg is ready. Which is perfectly the point Kyle made. The timer tells you that the cookies or your breakfast eggs are well done. You put them out of the oven or the pot at exactly the time when the timer event happens. You won't turn off the timer before your cookies/eggs are done, because you want them well done. The timeout you set up is to remind you to switch off the oven before your kitchen starts to burn. This timeout is likely - not sure in your personal case :) - to be cancelled because you did think about switching off the oven in time. If you forgot it, it is not a big difference if you get the reminder 5 minutes earlier or later. In case of the egg / cookie timer the distcintion of 1 to 5 minutes makes a big difference. tglx - 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/