Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932123AbVLSO43 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:56:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932131AbVLSO43 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:56:29 -0500 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:22173 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932123AbVLSO42 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:56:28 -0500 Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:56:18 +0100 (CET) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: George Anzinger cc: tglx@linutronix.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , rostedt@goodmis.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu Subject: Re: [patch 00/21] hrtimer - High-resolution timer subsystem In-Reply-To: <43A0D505.3080507@mvista.com> Message-ID: References: <20051206000126.589223000@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <1133908082.16302.93.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <1134148980.16302.409.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <1134405768.4205.190.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> <439E2308.1000600@mvista.com> <43A0D505.3080507@mvista.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1912 Lines: 45 Hi, On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, George Anzinger wrote: > > > IMHO then, the result should have the same property, i.e. ABS_TIME. Sort > > > of > > > like adding an offset to a relative address. The result is still relative. > > > > > > If the result is relative, why should have a clock set any effect? > > IMO the spec makes it quite clear that initial timer and the periodic timer > > are two different types of the timer. The initial timer only specifies how > > the periodic timer is started and the periodic timer itself is a "relative > > time service". > > > Well, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. That's easy for you to say. :) You don't think the current behaviour is wrong. > That which the interval is > added to is an absolute time, so I, and others, take the result as absolute. > At this point there really is no "conversion" to an absolute timer. Once the > timer initial time is absolute, everything derived from it, i.e. all intervals > added to it, must be absolute. With this argumentation, any relative timer could be treated this way, you have to base a relative timer on something. While searching for more information I found the NetBSD code and they do exactly this, they just convert everything to absolute values and clock set affects all timers equally. Is this now more correct? > For what its worth, I do think that the standards folks could have done a bit > better here. I, for example, would have liked to have seen a discussion about > what to do with overrun in the face of clock setting. Maybe they thought it wouldn't be necessary :), because a periodic is a relative timer and thus not affected... 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/