From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Dec 22 18:32:35 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: threads@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 476C5106566B;
	Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:32:35 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org)
Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CC078FC08;
	Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:32:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigwig.baldwin.cx [96.47.65.170])
	by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C112646B06;
	Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:32:34 -0500 (EST)
Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124])
	by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 56ABEB91E;
	Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:32:34 -0500 (EST)
From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:31:10 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p8; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; )
References: <4EF059DC.26433.B55D8036@s_sourceforge.nedprod.com>
	<201112211854.40798.hselasky@c2i.net> <86vcp8sfld.fsf@ds4.des.no>
In-Reply-To: <86vcp8sfld.fsf@ds4.des.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <201112221331.11031.jhb@freebsd.org>
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7
	(bigwig.baldwin.cx); Thu, 22 Dec 2011 13:32:34 -0500 (EST)
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
X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD <freebsd-threads.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-threads>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-threads@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-threads>,
	<mailto:freebsd-threads-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2011 18:32:35 -0000

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