On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Alan Cox wrote:Actually, I disagree. They are _both_ of the exact same type: the precision depends on how long the timeout is. TCP retransmit timers are a perfect example. If the timeout is long (which is quite common if you end up having multiple retransmits), you _really_ don't care about how precise it is. And keepalives are 'yeah whatever' exactly because they are so long, not because they are inherently uninteresting per se. I suspect you could find some kernel-generated timer that doesn't fit that pattern, but I can't really think of any. And yes, I do agree that the heuristic could well involve other characteristics of the process in question. And probably characteristics of the machine itself (ie some general kind of "power mode" where timers are simply not considered critical if you want to be in low-power mode). Linus --
| Tarkan Erimer | Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3 |
| Greg Kroah-Hartman | [PATCH 001/196] Chinese: Add the known_regression URI to the HOWTO |
| Benjamin Herrenschmidt | Re: [PATCH] Remove process freezer from suspend to RAM pathway |
| Bart Van Assche | Re: Integration of SCST in the mainstream Linux kernel |
git: | |
| Jarek Poplawski | [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock(). |
| Arjan van de Ven | Re: [GIT]: Networking |
| Gerrit Renker | [PATCH 27/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 2 (server side) |
| Natalie Protasevich | [BUG] New Kernel Bugs |
