Re: latency error (~2ms) with nanosleep

[Nish Aravamudan]

On 6/13/05, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> quade wrote:
> > Playing around with the (simple) measurement of latency-times
> > I noticed, that the systemcall "nanosleep" has always a minimal
> > latency from about ~2ms (haven't run it all night, so...). It
> > seems to be a systematical error.
> 
> Known issue.  The x86 interrupt usually has a period of slightly less
> than a ms.  It will therefore generally add nearly a whole ms to ensure
> that it does not ever wait for *less* than specified.

Exactly. And the sys_nanosleep() code adds one more if the parameter
has any positive value at all:

        expire = timespec_to_jiffies(&t) + (t.tv_sec || t.tv_nsec);
        current->state = TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
        expire = schedule_timeout(expire);

Thanks,
Nish
-
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/