Re: [PATCH] fix nanosleep() granularity bumps

[george anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> george anzinger <george@mvista.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>>Here is a fix for the problem that eliminates the index from the 
>>structure.  The index ALWAYS depends on the current value of 
>>base->timer_jiffies in a rather simple way which is I exploit.  Either 
>>patch works, but this seems much simpler...
> 
> 
> Seems to be a nice change.  I think it would be better to get Tim's fix into
> Linus's tree and let your rationalisation bake for a while in -mm.
> 
> There is currently a mysterious timer lockup happening on power4 machines. 
> I'd like to keep these changes well-separated in time so we can get an
> understanding of what code changes correlate with changed behaviour.

Tell me more...
> 
> There are timer changes in Linus's post-2.5.65 tree and your patch generates
> zillions of rejects against everything.  Can you send me a diff against
> Linus's latest sometime?

Sure, possibly even tonight.

-g



> 
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 

-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
High-res-timers:  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml