From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1764999AbXHFPzZ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:55:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753009AbXHFPzN (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:55:13 -0400 Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:34714 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752215AbXHFPzL (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Aug 2007 11:55:11 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] msleep() with hrtimers From: Arjan van de Ven To: Roman Zippel Cc: Jonathan Corbet , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , akpm@linux-foundation.org, Ingo Molnar In-Reply-To: References: <15327.1186166232@lwn.net> <1186170407.3153.8.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1186185229.3153.11.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1186255149.2777.3.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1186360983.2697.8.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <1186378798.2697.10.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Intel International BV Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:53:41 -0700 Message-Id: <1186415621.2706.4.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-2.fc7) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by pentafluge.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:03 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 5 Aug 2007, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > There's no problem to provide a high resolution sleep, but there is also > > > no reason to mess with msleep, don't fix what ain't broken... > > > > John Corbet provided the patch because he had a problem with the current > > msleep... in that it didn't provide as good a common case as he > > wanted... so I think your statement is wrong ;) > > Only under the assumptation, that msleep _must_ be "fixed" for all other > current users too. > Give users a choice to use msleep or nanosleep, how do you know what's > "best" for them? do you have any actual technical objections, or do you just hate hrtimers in general? I really don't see what you hate so much about making the msleep() implementation provide a more precise (typical sleep time of 1msec rather than 20msec) behavior than the current one. Trying to distract that by proposing a very different API (working on a totally different time unit, while a lot of kernel users are using miliseconds; don't get me wrong, a usleep() and nsleep() might be useful if there's users that want to sleep in such times) is just trying to distract the issue. So, let me ask a direct question: What do you think is specifically wrong about changing the msleep() implementation as is done here? The behavior is clearly an improvement, so what is your objection on the flipside? -- if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org