* TIME_SLOP vs. timer_slop
@ 2010-02-10 11:41 Jan Beulich
2010-02-10 13:28 ` Keir Fraser
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Jan Beulich @ 2010-02-10 11:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Keir Fraser; +Cc: xen-devel
Keir,
is there a reason why schedule.c and timer.c don't both use the latter,
command line controllable value?
Also, aren't the comment and code in vcpu_periodic_timer_work() out
of sync with the actual implementation in timer.c in that a timer will
never expire early (with timer_slop only being used to set an upper
bound on the expiry range)?
Thanks, Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: TIME_SLOP vs. timer_slop
2010-02-10 11:41 TIME_SLOP vs. timer_slop Jan Beulich
@ 2010-02-10 13:28 ` Keir Fraser
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Keir Fraser @ 2010-02-10 13:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Beulich; +Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
On 10/02/2010 11:41, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@novell.com> wrote:
> is there a reason why schedule.c and timer.c don't both use the latter,
> command line controllable value?
>
> Also, aren't the comment and code in vcpu_periodic_timer_work() out
> of sync with the actual implementation in timer.c in that a timer will
> never expire early (with timer_slop only being used to set an upper
> bound on the expiry range)?
Yes, true. Thanks for that; it's now fixed as c/s 20921.
-- Keir
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2010-02-10 13:28 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-02-10 11:41 TIME_SLOP vs. timer_slop Jan Beulich
2010-02-10 13:28 ` Keir Fraser
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).