From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3E97DD20.6030908@dgt-lab.com.pl> Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 11:32:16 +0200 From: Wojciech Kromer MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Linuxppc-Embedded (E-mail)" Subject: Re: kernel/timer.c References: <3E97BB43.6030409@dgt-lab.com.pl> <000901c300cd$b708f8a0$020120b0@jockeXP> In-Reply-To: <000901c300cd$b708f8a0$020120b0@jockeXP> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2; format=flowed Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: > > >>sleep(0) could be defined as: >>-schedule to next task if there is any (just call schedule() ) >>-sleep minimum value (1 jiffie) >> >>default kernel (no timer patches) uses second definition, >> >> > >No, linux uses the first definition(or whatever schedule_timeout(0) does). >If t is zero then expire also becomes zero. > > maybe, my missunderstood >>there is special call schedule_timeout(MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT) which also >>calls schedule() >> >> see kernel/sched.c so, anyone knows what linus.t says about adding one jiffie to every non-zero expire? -- * * * * * * * * * * * * * per pedes ad astra! * * * * * * * * * * * * * mailto:krom@dgt-lab.com.pl ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/