Riley Williams wrote:
> Hi George.
> I'm ignoring the rest of this - it makes sense to me, but I'm
> no expert in it. However, your last point is one I can comment
> about as I've dealt with it professionally many times.
> > clock_nanosleep is changed to round up to the next jiffie to
> > cover starting between jiffies.
> Isn't this a case of replacing one error with another, where
> one of the two errors is unavoidable?
> 1. In the old case, the sleep will on average be half a jiffie
> LESS than the requested period.
> 2. In the new case, the sleep will on average be half a jiffie
> MORE than the requested period.
> One or the other is unavoidable if a jiffie is the basic unit
> of time resolution of the system. However, the error is totally
> meaningless if we are asking to sleep for more than 15 jiffies.
I had a hard time justifiying this also. I would really like to have
better resolution. As to which choice to make, the standard is VERY
clear here: No timer or sleep shall complete BEFORE its time.
> Best wishes from Riley.
> * Nothing as pretty as a smile, nothing as ugly as a frown.
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.488 / Virus Database: 287 - Release Date: 5-Jun-2003
-- George Anzinger email@example.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Preemption patch: http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/rml
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jun 15 2003 - 22:00:24 EST