Re: [RFC] A more general timeout specification

[George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Andi Kleen wrote:
~>
> 
> If you do a new structure for this I would suggest adding a
> "precision" field (or the same with a different name). Basically
> precision would tell the kernel that the wakeup can be in a time
> range, not necessarily on the exact time specified. This helps
> optimizing the idle loop because you can batch timers better and is
> important for power management and virtualized environments. The
> kernel internally does not use support this yet, but there are plans
> to change the internal timers in this direction and if you're defining
> a new user interface I would add support for this.
> 
> I am not sure precision would be the right name, other suggestions
> are welcome.
>

I think the accepted and standard way to do this is to use different "clock"s. 
For example, in the HRT patch the clocks CLOCK_REALTIME_HR and 
CLOCK_MONOTONIC_HR are defined as high resolution clocks.
> 
~
-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/