From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751148AbWDENnY (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2006 09:43:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751150AbWDENnY (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2006 09:43:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:36762 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751148AbWDENnX (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Apr 2006 09:43:23 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:40:57 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Roman Zippel , johnstul@us.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/5] clocksource patches Message-ID: <20060405134057.GA30299@elte.hu> References: <1144126422.5344.418.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1144236167.5344.581.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1144236167.5344.581.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -2.8 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-2.8 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -2.8 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > For example above you bascially only state that your clock event source > > is superior and the correct way of doing this without any explanation why > > (and the "No, thanks." doesn't exactly imply that you're even interested > > in alternatives). > > The question arises, who is not interested in alternatives. You are > well aware about the efforts others made, but you don't even think > about working together with them. Do you really expect people to jump > on your train, when you entirely ignore their work and efforts and > just propose your own view of the world? > > I did nowhere say that I'm not interested in alternative solutions. > You interpret it into my words for whatever reason. just to explain it to everyone: the code Thomas refers to and which we are working on is John's GTOD patchset with Thomas' high-resolution timers patches ontop of it. [all of that (and more) is glued together in the -rt tree as well]. Thomas' hrtimers queue (ontop of 2.6.16) is a practical, working implementation of the clock-event design Thomas is talking about, resulting in a working high-resolution timers solution that spans all the relevant Linux APIs: nanosleep() and POSIX timers. So Thomas' arguments derive straight from that experience. for more details, the latest hrtimers code can be found at: http://tglx.de/projects/hrtimers the merge of the hrtimers subsystem into 2.6.16 was just the first step, and the next steps are expressed in the patches above. Ingo