From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263191AbVG3XhB (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:37:01 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263195AbVG3XhB (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:37:01 -0400 Received: from scrub.xs4all.nl ([194.109.195.176]:29411 "EHLO scrub.xs4all.nl") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263191AbVG3XhA (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Jul 2005 19:37:00 -0400 Date: Sun, 31 Jul 2005 01:35:35 +0200 (CEST) From: Roman Zippel X-X-Sender: roman@scrub.home To: Nishanth Aravamudan cc: Arjan van de Ven , Andrew Morton , domen@coderock.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, clucas@rotomalug.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add schedule_timeout_{interruptible,uninterruptible}{,_msecs}() interfaces In-Reply-To: <20050727222914.GB3291@us.ibm.com> Message-ID: References: <1122078715.5734.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1122116986.3582.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1122123085.3582.13.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20050723164310.GD4951@us.ibm.com> <20050723191004.GB4345@us.ibm.com> <20050727222914.GB3291@us.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Wed, 27 Jul 2005, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > My goal is to distinguish between these cases in sleeping-logic: > > > > > > 1) tick-oriented > > > use schedule_timeout(), add_timer(), etc. > > > > > > 2) time-oriented > > > use schedule_timeout_msecs() > > > > There is _no_ difference, the scheduler is based on ticks. Even if we soon > > have different time sources, the scheduler will continue to measure the > > time in ticks and for a simple reason - portability. Jiffies _are_ simple, > > don't throw that away. > > I agree that from an internal perspective there is no difference, but > from an *interface* perspective they are hugely different, simply on the > basis that one uses human-time units and one does not. > > I guess we must continue to agree to disagree. I'm not really sure, what you disagree about. 1 HZ is about one second, which I don't think is such a difficult concept. I already said wrapper functions are fine and for anything smaller than HZ/2 it's probably a good idea nowadays. My main point is to keep the core functionality in jiffies and provide some wrapper functions. What exactly do you disagree here on? bye, Roman