On Tue, 2005-05-17 at 20:03 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
> 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?
Yes, exactly. This is why I think going tickless is a good solution,
and CONFIG_HZ is bad, because with HZ=100 "sleep 5ms" would cause us to
sleep for 10ms.
Lee
-
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]
