Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Deferrable timers support for timerfd API

[Alexey Perevalov]

On 02/06/2014 02:16 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, John Stultz wrote:
> > On 02/05/2014 01:41 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Wed, 5 Feb 2014, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> > > > On 02/04/2014 08:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Alexey Perevalov wrote:
> > > > > > On 01/21/2014 11:12 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> > > > > > > Thomas: Any thought here? Should we be trying to unify the timerfd flags
> > > > > > > and the posix timer flags (specifically things like TIMER_CANCEL_ON_SET,
> > > > > > > which is currently timerfd-only)?  Should a deferrable flag be added to
> > > > > > > the hrtimer core or left to the timer wheel?
> > > > > The timer cancel on set was added only to timerfd because timerfd is a
> > > > > non posix interface and we are halfways free to add stuff to
> > > > > it. Adding extra flags to the real posix timer interfaces is a
> > > > > different story.
> > > > And what about "deferrable" possibility for hrtimers, do you consider it
> > > > reasonable?
> > > In principle, I have no objections, but we need a proper technical
> > > solution. Just adding a flag and keeping the timers in the same rbtree
> > > like we do for the timer wheel timers is not going to happen.
> > >
> > > The only feasible solution is to have separate clock ids,
> > > e.g. CLOCK_*_DEFERRABLE, which would enable the deferrable
> > > functionality for all user space interfaces. No need for magic flags
> > > and complex search for non deferrable timers.
> > So of course, I was actually arguing against having a new clockid (which
> > was Alexey's first approach).
> Mooo.
>   
> > My reasoning was that the deferrablity isn't a clock domain, and is more
> > of a modifier. Thus to keep the interfaces somewhat sane (and avoiding
> > having to add N new clockids for each new modifier), we should utilize
> > the flag arguments to timers. So instead of just having TIMER_ABSTIME,
> > we could add TIMER_DEFER, etc, which we could utilize instead.
> I can see the point. I have no objections against that approach as
> long as we map that against separate internal bases.
>   
> > Internally we can still keep separate bases, much as your patch does, to
> > keep the next-event searching overhead more limited.
> It's not only more limited, it's bound.
>   
> > I mainly wanted to get your thoughts on extending the flags, and doing
> > so in a consistent manner between the timerfd and other timer interfaces.
> So the only interface which does not support that is sys_nanosleep()
> but that's not really an issue. sys_nanosleep() should die anyway :)
>
> > Of course, all this is after I added the _ALARM clockids... so you can
> > decide if its hypocrisy or experience.
> > (The "old wisdom comes from experience and experience comes from bad
> > decisions" bit ;).
> Well, you have a valid point about the clock ids. I did not realize in
> the first place that we can avoid that business if we use the flags to
> select the internal representation.
>
> Either way is preferred over reintroducing the timer wheel mess....
>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx

As I truly understand, you decided - flags is better than new clockids, 
and internals of timerfd could be a mix of timer_list and hrtimer.
If so, it's in v2 patch set.

--
Best regards,
Alexey Perevalov
--
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/