On Wed, 2013-04-10 at 11:48 -0400, Olivier Langlois wrote: > > You have valid concerns and I will attempt to clarify the changes I > propose. Before I do, realise that as a first time patcher, I > sincerely > attempted to minimize the changes required to fix the posix cputimers.
Right, I suspect some of that is what made me go yuck! when reading the patch. I feel some interfaces could be avoided if we refactor a bit more -- and given the complexity of the code its well worth doing. > The real source of the problem is that the process clock is distinct > from its cputimer. It is not explained why it is done like that in the > code but I understand that the benefit is that you can fetch the > cputimer value and avoiding the cost to traverse the list of tasks > member of the group. The price to pay however it is that it is painful > to make sure that the clock and its corresponding cputimer remain in > sync as they advance. With that in mind, I did all I can to minimize > thread group task list traversal when possible and do it only when > mandatory which is when you set a timer expiration time. Right, I hope my earlier email explained why it is so expensive and thus why they're separated. I'll try and dig through the rest of your email later.. sorry for being a tad slow etc. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
