On 6/13/05, Chris Friesen <[email protected]> wrote:
> quade wrote:
> > Playing around with the (simple) measurement of latency-times
> > I noticed, that the systemcall "nanosleep" has always a minimal
> > latency from about ~2ms (haven't run it all night, so...). It
> > seems to be a systematical error.
>
> Known issue. The x86 interrupt usually has a period of slightly less
> than a ms. It will therefore generally add nearly a whole ms to ensure
> that it does not ever wait for *less* than specified.
Exactly. And the sys_nanosleep() code adds one more if the parameter
has any positive value at all:
expire = timespec_to_jiffies(&t) + (t.tv_sec || t.tv_nsec);
current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
expire = schedule_timeout(expire);
Thanks,
Nish
-
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]
