Subject: Re: bug#12248: sleep is not arware of suspend mode

From: Eric Blake <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:03:15 -0600

On 08/21/2012 02:50 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> On 08/21/2012 09:58 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>> That is the expected behavior.
> 
> It's not the behavior *I* expect.  I expect
> 'sleep' to use realtime seconds, not seconds
> of some arbitrary clock that's way far from
> real time.

In fact, I think both modes have their use, and that we probably ought
to provide an option to choose between absolute wall clock deadline
(stable realtime sleep even if the processor time jumps forwards or
backwards or has gaps due to suspend) vs. elapsed relative processor
time (where changing the processor clock can lengthen or shorten the
sleep duration).  If we do add code to support multiple flavors of sleep
durations, I'd probably lean towards absolute wall time as the default.

-- 
Eric Blake   [email-masked]    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org