Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep()

[Alan Cox]

On Gwe, 2005-06-24 at 12:42, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> Are you saying that each might get the CPU from between 0 and 1
> tick, i.e., asynchronous with the tick? If so, depending upon the
> phase between the timer-tick and when a task gets awakened, a task
> may never get any CPU time at all. If so, this is a bug.

No I'm saying the samping rate of the timer tick limits the resolution
of accounting of data (ie straight information theory limits)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/