Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932484AbWJFANY (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:13:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932486AbWJFANX (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:13:23 -0400 Received: from mailfe09.tele2.it ([212.247.155.13]:58079 "EHLO swip.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932485AbWJFANV (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:13:21 -0400 X-T2-Posting-ID: VkvTh9l7ZoGXxeaXnVjcEw== X-Cloudmark-Score: 0.000000 [] Message-ID: <45259F9F.1050203@sssup.it> Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 02:13:19 +0200 From: Tommaso Cucinotta User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (X11/20060728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: In-kernel precise timing. Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1014 Lines: 28 Hi, I'd like to know what is the preferrable way, in a Linux kernel module, to get a notification at a time in the future so to avoid as much as possible unpredictable delays due to possible device driver interferences. Basically, I would like to use such a mechanism to preempt (also) real-time tasks for the purpose of temporally isolating them from among each other. Is there any prioritary mechanism for specifying kind of higher priority timers, to be served as soon as possible, vs. lower priority ones, that could be e.g. delayed to ksoftirqd and similar ? (referring to 2.6.17/18, currently using add_timer(), del_timer(), but AFAICS these primitives are more appropriate for "timeout" behaviours, rather than "precise timing" ones). Thanks, regards, T. - 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/