From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33825) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEFoR-0000Zr-UG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 04:39:21 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEFoQ-0007bi-Rs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 04:39:15 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58631) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TEFoQ-0007be-JO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Sep 2012 04:39:14 -0400 Message-ID: <505984A6.3030900@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:39:02 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1348000626-16129-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <5059738E.5070004@redhat.com> <505977CD.7000404@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <505977CD.7000404@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-clock: add an alarm timer based on timerfd List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Stefan Weil , Anthony Liguori , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" , Peter Portante Il 19/09/2012 09:44, Jan Kiszka ha scritto: >> > Looks good. I think Peter Portante tested something similar, and found no big >> > difference between the two. But it's a good thing and, in my opinion, for >> > non-timerfd OSes we should simply adjust the select() timeout and not bother >> > with signals. > What would be the advantage of timerfd over select? On Linux, both use > hrtimers (and low slack for RT processes). I'm starting to like the > select/WaitForMultipleObjects pattern as it would allow to consolidate > over basically two versions of timers and simplify the code. Oh, I didn't know this. Even better. Paolo