Re: nanosleep resolution, jiffies vs microseconds

[Darren Hart]

On Wed, 2004-12-08 at 09:14 -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Hello, Darren,
> 
> Thank you very much for getting to the bottom of this!
> 
> This is mostly an issue when sleeping for small numbers of ticks,
> so if HZ was 10000, a nanosleep(1000000) would get bumped by
> a couple hundred microseconds rather than the current milliseconds,
> right?

yes.

> 
> Further, if one were to do nanosleep(900000) given HZ of 1024,
> the expected sleep time would be 2 milliseconds, right?

and yes.

-- 
Darren Hart <dvhltc@xxxxxxxxxx>
IBM Linux Technology Center

-
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/