Thomas:
Here's a question for you or anyone else who can help.
I've got a low-precision kernel timer, with a delay measured in seconds
(and rounded off to a second boundary). Under some circumstances the
timer might be cancelled and restarted many times in quick succession
(a few thousand times perhaps). Alternatively the timer could simply
be allowed to expire and then restarted, with the callback routine
doing a rather small amount of work.
Which is the most efficient? Or to put it another way, how many times
can I cancel and restart a low-precision timer before it uses up as
much CPU time as allowing the timer to expire once?
Is there a reasonable way to answer this? I can't think of any good
tests. Or is the difference in overhead so small as to be meaningless?
Alan Stern
-
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]
