Re: setitimer expire too early (Kernel 2.4)

[George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>]

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> Hi Olivier,
> 
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2005 at 07:52:12PM +0200, Olivier Croquette wrote:
> 
>>Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>>Linus, Andrew, do you consider this critical enough to be merged to 
>>>>the v2.4 tree?
>>>
>>>
>>>No.  I'd expect this would hurt more people than it would benefit.
>>
>>
>>Probably.
>>Does that mean that the kernel 2.4 will keep this bug for ever?
> 
> 
> Probably, yes. I've never heard such complaints before your message.
> 
> The right way to do it seems something else BTW:
> 
> quoting Nish Aravamudan (http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/4/29/240):
> 
> Your patch is the only way to guarantee no early timeouts, as far as I know.
> 
> Really, what you want is:
> 
> on adding timers, take the ceiling of the interval into which it could be added
> on expiring timers, take the floor
> 
> This combination guarantees no timers go off early (and takes away
> many of these corner cases). I do exactly this in my patch, btw.

IMNSHO that is just another way of saying "add 1 to the jiffie count" which is 
what the proposed patch does.


-- 
George Anzinger   george@mvista.com
HRT (High-res-timers):  http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/