Re: nanosleep

mark manning (mark.manning@fastermail.com)
Tue, 09 Apr 2002 23:42:43 -0500

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/