On 01/25/2012 04:01 AM, john stultz wrote:
Why do you want to move loops like the above from jiffies based timeouts
to hrtimers?
I'm trying to see whether there are possible benefits in the sense of power
management.
More hrtimers with larger expire deltas -> more opportunities to coalesce
h
On Mon, 2012-01-23 at 19:40 +0400, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> This patch provides an attempt to get away from jiffies in msleep()
> and msleep_interruptible() to hrtimers-backed usleep_range() and
> usleep_range_interruptible(). Both of the latter now returns an amount
> of microseconds really spent i
Adding Thomas since he is maintainer of hrtimers and John since he
knows a bit about timekeeping. :)
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Dmitry Antipov
wrote:
> This patch provides an attempt to get away from jiffies in msleep()
> and msleep_interruptible() to hrtimers-backed usleep_range() and
> us
This patch provides an attempt to get away from jiffies in msleep()
and msleep_interruptible() to hrtimers-backed usleep_range() and
usleep_range_interruptible(). Both of the latter now returns an amount
of microseconds really spent in sleep; another rationale for this
was to convert msleep()-based
