Re: [PATCH][4/4] poll()/select() timeout behavior

[Andrew Morton]

"Bill Rugolsky Jr." <brugolsky@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This patch forces select() to wait *at least* the specified timeout if
> no events have occurred, same as poll(). The SUSv3 man page for select(2)
> says:
> 
>    "If the timeout parameter is not a null pointer, it specifies a maximum
>    interval to wait for the selection to complete. If the specified
>    time interval expires without any requested operation becoming ready,
>    the function shall return."
> 
> Additionally:
> 
>    "If the requested timeout interval requires a finer granularity than
>    the implementation supports, the actual timeout interval shall be
>    rounded up to the next supported value."
> 
> Unfortunately, fixing the fencepost error places a hard lower limit of
> 1/HZ on the time slept, and increases the average minimum sleep time
> threefold, from 1/(2*HZ) jiffy to 3/(2*HZ).

I'm inclined to live with the current behaviour rather than
risk breaking existing apps.

> 
> --- linux/fs/select.c	2004-02-20 14:29:11.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux/fs/select.c	2004-02-20 14:30:18.326814232 -0500
> @@ -313,8 +313,8 @@
>  		if (sec < 0 || usec < 0 || usec >= 1000000)
>  			goto out_nofds;
>  
> -		if ((unsigned long) sec < (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT-1) / HZ - 1) {
> -			timeout = ROUND_UP(usec, 1000000/HZ);
> +		if ((unsigned long) sec < (MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT-2) / HZ - 1) {
> +			timeout = ROUND_UP(usec, 1000000/HZ) + 1;
>  			timeout += sec * (unsigned long) HZ;
>  		} else {
>  			timeout = MAX_SCHEDULE_TIMEOUT-1;
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/