On Mon, Mar 12, 2007 at 10:10:06AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Roland McGrath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I agree it should restart. But I don't think this is quite right in > > the timeout case. It will increase the total maximum real time spent > > arbitrarily by the amount of time elapsed in signal handlers. Other > > restartable, timed calls have to convert to an absolute timeout for > > the restart block (and convert back when doing the restart). > > i dont think we should try to do this. We should not and cannot do > anything about all of the artifacts that comes with the use of relative > timeouts and schedule_timeout(). > > basically, using jiffies here (which schedule_timeout() does) is > /fundamentally/ imprecise. If you get many interrupts, rounding errors > sum up - and there's nothing we can do about it!
Well I did convert futex_wait to an absolute timeout based version in the subsequent incremental patch. I think that is OK? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
