On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:19:02 +0200
Rene Herman <rene.herman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 22-07-08 05:02, David Woodhouse wrote:
Many users of timers don't really care too much about exactly whenAre there actually users for this (not just in theory)? The
their timer fires -- and waking a CPU to satisfy such a timer is a
waste of power. This patch implements a 'range' timer which will
fire at a 'convenient' moment within given constraints.
It's implemented by a deferrable timer at the beginning of the
range, which will run some time later when the CPU happens to be
awake. And a non-deferrable timer at the hard deadline, to ensure
it really does happen by then.
deferrable timer sort of sounds like all I'd ever want if I, as you
say, wouldn't really care...
there's a few; mostly around hardware timeout..For example Stephen want
it for his drivers.
EXT3 journal flushing is another one where we can easily say "between 4 and 7 seconds" rather than "exactly at 5"