On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Andreas Schwab wrote:
"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.
Yeah nano is -9 micro is -6, three more zeros when using nano.
I note that the actual syscall is __NR_nanosleep = 162. I don't
understand the discrepancy either.
--
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."
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.12 on an i686 machine (5537.79 BogoMips).
Notice : All mail here is now cached for review by Dictator Bush.
98.36% of all statistics are fiction.
[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]
