Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At 06:18 PM 6/26/2005 +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
On Gwe, 2005-06-24 at 12:42, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Are you saying that each might get the CPU from between 0 and 1
> tick, i.e., asynchronous with the tick? If so, depending upon the
> phase between the timer-tick and when a task gets awakened, a task
> may never get any CPU time at all. If so, this is a bug.

No I'm saying the samping rate of the timer tick limits the resolution
of accounting of data (ie straight information theory limits)

(precisely stated [again])
-
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/

[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]
  Powered by Linux