Messages in this thread | | | From | "mark manning" <> | Date | Tue, 09 Apr 2002 23:41:56 -0500 | Subject | Re: nanosleep |
| |
thanx - how much of a difference should i expect - i know the syscall is asking for at least the required ammount but that the task switcher might not give me control back for a while after the requested delay but i was expecting to be a little closer to what i had asked for - this isnt critical of corse but i would like to know what to expect.
----- Original Message ----- From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com> Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2002 21:17:03 -0700 To: mark manning <mark.manning@fastermail.com> Subject: Re: nanosleep
> mark manning wrote: > > doh - i think something is still wrong, i ask for 1000 ms and i get a second but if i do a 500 itteration loop asking for 1 ms i get 5 seconds. i am also starting to distrust my elapsed time display which is using the gettimeofday syscall > > > > It doesn't work that way. Each call to nanosleep() gives you a > *MINIMUM* time to delay. The kernel may decide to schedule you away and > pick your process up when it suits it. > > -hpa > > >
--
_______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://www.fastermail.com
Powered by Outblaze - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |