On 05/19/2017 11:07 AM, David Holmes wrote:
They have to be as there are three cases:
1. Relative wait using CLOCK_MONOTONIC
2. Relative wait using gettimeofday()
3. Absolute wait using gettimeofday()
Please consider something like:
#ifdef SUPPORTS_CLOCK_MONOTONIC
if (_use_clock_monotonic_condattr && !isAbsolute) { // Why aren't we using
this when not isAbsolute is set?
// I suggest removing that check from this if
and use monotonic for that also.
Absolute waits have to be based on wall-clock time and follow any adjustments made to wall clock time. In contrast relative waits should never be affected by wall-clock
time adjustments hence the use of CLOCK_MONOTONIC when available.
In Java the relative timed-waits are:
- Thread.sleep(ms)
- Object.wait(ms)/wait(ms,ns)
- LockSupport.parkNanos(ns) (and all the j.u.c blocking methods built on top of
it)
While the only absolute timed-wait we have is the LockSupport.parkUntil
method(s).
Hope that clarifies things.
Yes thanks!
But you can still re-factoring to something similar to what I suggested and two
of the calculation should be the same just ns vs us, correct?
Leaving the if statement with the "!isAbsolute" check, in my head calc_time is
something like:
void calc_time(...) {
if (isAbsolute) {
calc_abs_time(...);
} else {
calc_rel_time(...);
}
}
I do not see a problem with this, only better readability?
/Robbin
Thanks,
David
-----
struct timespec now;
int status = _clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &now);
assert_status(status == 0, status, "clock_gettime");
calc_time(abstime, timeout, isAbsolute, now.tv_sec, now.tv_nsec,
NANOUNITS);
} else {
#else
{
#endif
struct timeval now;
int status = gettimeofday(&now, NULL);
assert(status == 0, "gettimeofday");
calc_time(abstime, timeout, isAbsolute, now.tv_sec, now.tv_usec,
MICROUNITS);
}
#endif
Thanks for fixing this!
/Robbin