lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 0/3] Deferrable timers support for timerfd API
Dear John, hello

could we figure out without Thomas advice?
Maybe it worth to propose timerfd and posix timer flag unification patch?

On 01/21/2014 11:12 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On 01/13/2014 02:43 AM, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
>> Hello dear community.
>>
>> This is reworked patch set of original Anton's Vorontsov
>> proposal regarding unified deferrable timers in the user space.
>> http://lwn.net/Articles/514707/
>>
>>
>> I decided to resubmit it due we found it usefull for us too.
>>
>> timerfd was modified since Anton's commit, Alarm support was added.
>> This isn't only rebase. Anton's previous version used deferrable timer
>> in couple with hrtimer. This version uses only deferrable timer. It
>> mean the behaviour of overrun number is different.
>> e.g. if you don't poll one second timer for a 10 seconds - you'll get
>> 10 overruns with hrtimer, but for deferrable timer it could be another value.
>>
> Sorry, last week was a little crazy and I didn't get a chance to closely
> review this. But looking at this my major conceptual objection with the
> previous patchset (introducing the new clockid) is gone.
>
> My remaining conceptual concern here is that the TIMER_DEFERRABLE flag
> is a timerfd only construct here, and I worry we should make sure we
> think this through well enough that the same functionality can be
> supported via other timer interfaces (like clock_nanosleep, etc), which
> may mean the functionality should be pushed more deeply into the hrtimer
> subsystem.
>
> So main suggestion here is to make sure you cc Thomas Gleixner on future
> iterations, so he can provide some thoughts on what the best approach
> might be here. I know he also has some plans that might collide with the
> jiffies_to_ktime work.
>
> Thomas: Any thought here? Should we be trying to unify the timerfd flags
> and the posix timer flags (specifically things like TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET,
> which is currently timerfd-only)? Should a deferrable flag be added to
> the hrtimer core or left to the timer wheel?
>
> thanks
> -john
> --
> 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/
>
>


--
Best regards,
Alexey Perevalov,
Leading software engineer,
phone: +7 (495) 797 25 00 ext 3969
e-mail: a.perevalov@samsung.com <mailto:a.perevalov@samsumng.com>

Mobile group, Samsung R&D Institute Rus
12 Dvintsev street, building 1
127018, Moscow, Russian Federation


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-03 09:01    [W:0.979 / U:3.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site