Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:31:10 -0500 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org Cc: arch@freebsd.org, Dag-Erling =?utf-8?q?Sm=C3=B8rgrav?= <des@des.no>, threads@freebsd.org, Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> Subject: Re: [Patch] C1X threading support Message-ID: <201112221331.11031.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <86vcp8sfld.fsf@ds4.des.no> References: <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com> <201112211854.40798.hselasky@c2i.net> <86vcp8sfld.fsf@ds4.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thursday, December 22, 2011 12:04:14 pm Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: > Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> writes: > > Absolute timeouts is no good idea! We should stick with kernel-ticks wh= en=20 > > possible :-) >=20 > There is no such thing as a kernel in the C standard. All it knows > about is the implementation and the program. The best solution would > probably have been a timescale that counts the time elapsed since the > start of the program. You could do relative timeouts specified in some absolute timescale like us= or=20 ns or ms. You could even use a 'struct timespec' or some such to do that=20 similar to how the it_interval member of struct itimer is used with=20 setitimer(2). That is what programmers actually want to use, and invariabl= y=20 end up implementing in a wrapper API around APIs that use absolute timeouts. =2D-=20 John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201112221331.11031.jhb>