lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Mar]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: posix-cpu-timers revamp
From
Date
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 00:18 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote:
> I think I misled you about the use of the it_*_expires fields, sorry.
> The task_struct.it_*_expires fields are used solely as a cache of the
> head of cpu_timers[]. Despite the poor choice of the same name, the
> signal_struct.it_*_expires fields serve a different purpose. For an
> analogous cache of the soonest timer to expire, you need to add new
> fields. The signal_struct.it_{prof,virt}_{expires,incr} fields hold
> the setitimer settings for ITIMER_{PROF,VTALRM}. You can't change
> those in arm_timer. For a quick cache you need a new field that is
> the sooner of it_foo_expires or the head cpu_timers[foo] expiry time.

Actually, after looking at the code again and thinking about it a bit,
it appears that the signal_struct.it_*_incr field holds the actual
interval as set by setitimer. Initially the it_*_expires field holds
the expiration time as set by setitimer, but after the timer fires the
first time that value becomes <firing time>+it_*_incr. In other words,
the first time it fires at the value set by setitimer() but from then on
it fires at a time indicated by whatever the time was the last time the
timer fired plus the value in it_*_incr. This time is stored in
signal_struct.it_*_expires.

I guess I could be wrong about this, but it appears to be what the code
is doing. If my analysis is correct, I really don't need a new field,
since the old fields work just fine.
--
Frank Mayhar <fmayhar@google.com>
Google, Inc.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-03-21 21:43    [W:0.091 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site