On Sun, Jul 03, 2005 at 08:56:59AM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 02:14:42PM -0700, George Anzinger wrote: > > Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > >Hi Olivier, > > > > > >On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:52:12PM +0200, Olivier Croquette wrote: > > > > > >>Andrew Morton wrote: > > >> > > >>>>Linus, Andrew, do you consider this critical enough to be merged to > > >>>>the v2.4 tree? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>No. I'd expect this would hurt more people than it would benefit. > > >> > > >> > > >>Probably. > > >>Does that mean that the kernel 2.4 will keep this bug for ever? > > > > > > > > >Probably, yes. I've never heard such complaints before your message. > > > > > >The right way to do it seems something else BTW: > > > > > >quoting Nish Aravamudan (http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/29/240): > > > > > >Your patch is the only way to guarantee no early timeouts, as far as I > > >know. > > > > > >Really, what you want is: > > > > > >on adding timers, take the ceiling of the interval into which it could be > > >added > > >on expiring timers, take the floor > > > > > >This combination guarantees no timers go off early (and takes away > > >many of these corner cases). I do exactly this in my patch, btw. > > > > IMNSHO that is just another way of saying "add 1 to the jiffie count" which > > is what the proposed patch does. > > Hi George, > > OK - I'll write a test case to confirm there are no such longer delay > regressions as Paulo suggests. > > Thanks for your advice.
Hi folks, There is indeed a systematic increase of +20ms when adding "+1" to the expiration interval. Since no one has noticed this before I continue to wonder if its worth adding this to v2.4 at this point in time. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
