lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Apr]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: nanosleep
From
Date
On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 00:41, mark manning wrote:

> 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.

The minimum granularity of the timer is 1/HZ, which on a i386 is only
10ms.

If you want high-resolution timers, check out the high-res-timers
project at http://high-res-timers.sf.net/ - they implement POSIX timers
(which include a nanosleep call) with very high resolution (1/cpu
clock).

Robert Love

-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:25    [W:0.030 / U:0.140 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site