On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 17:55 -0800, john stultz wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 01:18 +0000, Jamie Lokier wrote: > > Valdis.Kletnieks@xxxxxx wrote: > > > On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 10:43:59 GMT, Jamie Lokier said: > > > > > > > So maybe CLOCK_MONOTONIC should be changed to include elapsed time > > > > during suspend/resume, and CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW could remain as it is, > > > > for programs that want that? > > > > > > Wouldn't that be an API break for programs that are expecting the current > > > behavior of CLOCK_MONOTONIC? Yes, there should be a way to request either of > > > them - but if there's only one way now, it should continue to act the current > > > way, and the added way is the second option. > > > > I don't know. Can you think of any program which would break if > > suspend/resume's clocks behaved like ordinary task scheduling - when a > > task doesn't run for a long time because of scheduling decisions? > > Hmm, I guess some realtime apps might like to know. > > Like I mentioned earlier, CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW and CLOCK_MONOTONIC are > tightly tied, so anything using CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW would break. > > It might be possible to change both, but I still think such a change > would be bad. So actually, as I think more about this, I'm starting to come around to the side that maybe CLOCK_MONOTONIC should be changed to increment during suspend (CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW could also be moved forward by the same amount, which isn't really ideal, but maybe not problematic). There are still quite a number of problems that might be caused by such a change. So it may still be impractical to actually do, but more and more it does seem like it might be the better approach. I keep thinking about it. thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
