> On 11/17/05, Dag Nygren <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Which kernel, what value of HZ?
Sorry, the kernel is 2.6.13 and HZ is 250.
> In either case, it's absurd to assume
> that the kernel is going to provide you 1 microsecond resolution in
> 2.6 mainline, as the best HZ value is 1000 (1 millisecond). And we
> don't busy-wait ever in nanosleep().
Not?
The man page for nanosleep saya that times under 2 us are implemented
by a busywait and this is why I expected it to work.
> So the fastest your loop can run
> is 1000 * 1 ms = 1 second. That's assuming the only time-consuming
> thing is sleeping (minimal overhead). But, in sys_nanosleep(), we
> convert nanoseconds to jiffies and add 1 if you requested any sleep
> time. So,
>
> HZ = 100
> 1000 * (10 + 1 ms) = 11 s
> HZ = 250
> 1000 * (4 + 1 ms) = 5 s
> HZ = 1000
> 1000 * (1 + 1 ms) = 2 s (which is what Dick Johnson reported).
>
> Note, that with HZ=250, there might be some extra rounding occurring
> timespec_to_jiffies() that I've forgotten.
>
> So 8 s may not be terribly unreasonable. I don't know, though, what's
> add the 3 seconds if you're using 250.
OK, in that case the manpage should be changed. And an alternative
has to be worked out by me ;-).
Thankyou
Dag
-
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]
