Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()

"Richard B. Johnson" <[email protected]> writes:

> nanosleep() appears to have a problem. It may be just an
> 'accounting' problem, but it isn't pretty. Code that used
> to use usleep() to spend most of it's time sleeping, used
> little or no CPU time as shown by `top`. The same code,
> converted to nanosleep() appears to spend a lot of CPU
> cycles spinning. The result is that `top` or similar
> programs show lots of wasted CPU time.

usleep() is just a wrapper around nanosleep().  Are you sure you got the
units right?

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [email protected]
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()
    • From: "Richard B. Johnson" <[email protected]>

• References:
  • Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()
    • From: "Richard B. Johnson" <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [patch 1/1] selinux: minor cleanup in the hooks.c:file_map_prot_check() code
• Next by Date: Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()
• Previous by thread: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()
• Next by thread: Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]