On Thu, 14 Dec 2006, tike64 wrote:
> Steven Rostedt <[email protected]> wrote:
> > ...
> > it's ok for the timer to be a little over, but it must never be a
> > little under.
> > ...
> > So we make sure the timer goes off in (n+1) ms, and not just (n).
Oops, that should have read (n+1) 10ms, or +1 res. But you got the point
anyway ;)
>
> Ok, this makes sense - thanks.
>
> What confuses / confused me is that I have 4 combinations:
> without-rt/with-rt X select/nanosleep; I first tried the
> without-rt/select combination and right after that with-rt combinations
> skipping the without-rt/nanosleep case. The first one was the one (the
> only one) which gives me the 10ms average delay. And after your
> explanations that fact bugs me even more.
Actually, I just ran your prog on a ia32 -rt kernel, with highres, and
using select, I get return times of less than 5ms. So this looks like a
bug. On 2.6.17 vanilla, I also got under 5ms. But it might be ok for
select to return early. I'm not sure on this one. But using nansleep
never returned early on either system.
>
> But that is a side issue. The real problem is now: how do I get rid of
> the multi-ms jitter?
>
So you got a big jitter using nanosleep??? If that's the case, could you
post the times you got. I'll also boot a kernel with the latest -rt patch,
without highres compiled, and see if I can reproduce the same on x86.
-- Steve
-
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]
