Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-05 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > A slacked timer still gets enqueued into the main timer queue. It just > > relies on the fact that it gets batched with some other expiring > > timer. But thats completely different to the defer

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-05 Thread Richard Cochran
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 11:11:21PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > Once we agree on a solution to the Y2038 issue on 32bit with a unified > 32/64 bit syscall interface which simply gets rid of the timespec/val > nonsense and takes a simple u64 nsec value we can add the slack > property to that w

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-04 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > We do no add another random special case syscall for timerfd just >> > because timerfd is linux specific. >> >> What syscalls? I can

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-04 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > We do no add another random special case syscall for timerfd just > > because timerfd is linux specific. > > What syscalls? I can think of exactly two timer interfaces that > actually accept a

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-04 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> On the other hand, if you added a fancier version of timerfd_settime >> >> that c

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-04 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 4 Mar 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > >> On the other hand, if you added a fancier version of timerfd_settime > >> that could explicitly set the slack value (or, equivalently, the > >>

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-04 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> On the other hand, if you added a fancier version of timerfd_settime >> that could explicitly set the slack value (or, equivalently, the >> earliest and latest allowable times), that could be q

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-03-04 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On 02/20/2014 08:23 AM, Alexey Perevalov wrote: > > From: Anton Vorontsov > > > > This patch implements a userland-side API for generic deferrable timers, > > per linux/timer.h: > > > > * A deferrable timer will work normally when the system is busy

Re: [PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-02-25 Thread Andy Lutomirski
On 02/20/2014 08:23 AM, Alexey Perevalov wrote: > From: Anton Vorontsov > > This patch implements a userland-side API for generic deferrable timers, > per linux/timer.h: > > * A deferrable timer will work normally when the system is busy, but > * will not cause a CPU to come out of idle just t

[PATCH v4 5/6] timerfd: Add support for deferrable timers

2014-02-20 Thread Alexey Perevalov
From: Anton Vorontsov This patch implements a userland-side API for generic deferrable timers, per linux/timer.h: * A deferrable timer will work normally when the system is busy, but * will not cause a CPU to come out of idle just to service it; instead, * the timer will be serviced when the