Re: [PATCH] Bad rounding in timeval_to_jiffies [was: Re: Odd Timerbehavior in 2.6 vs 2.4 (1 extra tick)]

[Steven Rostedt]

On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 09:51 +0100, Russell King wrote:
[...]
> The problem is that when you add a timer, you don't have any idea
> which point you're going to be starting your timer at.
> 
> This is why we always round up to the next jiffy when we convert
> times to jiffies - this ensures that you will get at _least_ the
> timeout you requested, which is in itself a very important
> guarantee.
> 

Thanks, I forgot about the guarantee of "at least" the time requested.
I took this on because I noticed this in a driver I wrote. With the user
passing in a timeval for a periodic condition. I noticed that this would
drift quite a bit. I guess I need to write my own timeval_to_jiffies
conversion so that i remove the added jiffy. For this case, I actually
want a true rounded value to the closest jiffy.

Thanks again,

-- Steve


-
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/