On Tue, 17 May 2005 19:25:41 EDT, Lee Revell said: > How do you expect application developers to handle not being able to > count on the resolution of nanosleep()? Currently they can at least > assume 10ms on 2.4, 1ms on 2.6. Seems to me that if you are no longer > guaranteed to be able to sleep 5ms on 2.6, you would just have to > busywait. Is it me, or does that way lie madness? If you're running tickless, wouldn't a 'sleep 5ms' cause a timer event to be queued, and we wake up (approx) 5ms later?
Attachment:
pgpDvVYaAdGDg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- References:
- [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- From: christoph <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- From: christoph <[email protected]>
- Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- From: Lee Revell <[email protected]>
- [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- Prev by Date: RE: [PATCH 2.6.12-rc4-mm1 3/4] megaraid_sas: updating the driver
- Next by Date: Re: 2.6.12-rc4-mm2 build failure
- Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] i386: Selectable Frequency of the Timer Interrupt.
- Index(es):