Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 08:53:16 -0700 (MST) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: phk@phk.freebsd.dk Cc: arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: New "timeout" api, to replace callout Message-ID: <20071202.085316.723205116.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <19256.1196608121@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20071202055031.A8107@xorpc.icir.org> <19256.1196608121@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <19256.1196608121@critter.freebsd.dk>
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> writes:
: In message <20071202055031.A8107@xorpc.icir.org>, Luigi Rizzo writes:
:
:
: >This is why i suggest having a 'scale' that can represent '1 tick'
: >(and also don't depend on TIMEOUT_MSEC == 1000 and so on, but keep
: >them opaque and require that the client code uses one of the supported
: >scales).
:
:
: Using a deadline timer based in the HPET, the timeout can be scheduled
: to any 1/14318181th of a second and there will be no concept of "a
: tick" as we know it now.
:
: Clients should say how often they want to be called, and they should
: express it in terms of time, not based on some implementation detail
: of a historical implementation of the scheduler.
Yes. I'd definitely like to move to this sort of thing. I missed the
conversion routines in my last email, so ignore that part of things...
Does this mean that you're planning a so-called tickless
implementation?
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071202.085316.723205116.imp>