Mailing List archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[vdr] Re: usleep question.
Andreas Schultz wrote:
...
> so, we are using nanosleep ;-)
Good.
Does that mean the suggestion in the man page is obsolete?
> The selection of 1ms is arbritraty and could probably also replace by
> sched_yield().
usleep(1) does not request 1 ms, but 1/1000 ms!
1ms would be usleep(1000).
> asmlinkage long sys_nanosleep(struct timespec *rqtp, struct timespec *rmtp)
> {
> .....
> /*
> * Short delay requests up to 2 ms will be handled with
> * high precision by a busy wait for all real-time processes.
> *
>
> This explains the lookup's when running under real-time scheduling. The
> scheduler will not allow other process to run, therefore completly blocking
> out all other processes.
That also suggests that it would be safer to use
usleep(10000) instead of usleep(1), doesn't it?
Carsten.
Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index