Re: nanosleep & sginap

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

Moshe Nissim (moshe++at++orad.co.il)
Mon, 29 Mar 1999 19:41:45 +0200


Ken Lindsay wrote:

> i had done some fiddlin' a few weeks ago trying to get better resolution
> than sginap provides, and so i tested nanosleep and usleep. my conclusion
> was that their resolution (at least in the default setup in IRIX 6.5.1)
> is 10 milliseconds, just like sginap. here is some sample data:
>
>

It is not a "resolution" problem, but an extra time-slice.
Time-slice is 10ms in non-priority processes, and 1 ms in realtime priority processes.
Also when the time-slice is 1ms there is an extra slice of sleep. Thus you get
11 ms from sginap.
My nanosleep tests reproduced the same symptom.
So it appears to be a basic kernel scheduling problem, not specific to sginap.

--
  Moshe Nissim,   Orad Hi-Tec Systems
  Tel: (972) - 9 - 7676862 (ext. 579)
  Fax: (972) - 9 - 7676861
  Email: moshe++at++orad.co.il

New Message Reply Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Mon Mar 29 1999 - 09:38:06 PST

This message has been cleansed for anti-spam protection. Replace '++at++' in any mail addresses with the '@' symbol.