From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261299AbULHSbH (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:31:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261305AbULHSbH (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:31:07 -0500 Received: from e32.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.130]:56230 "EHLO e32.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261299AbULHSa6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:30:58 -0500 Subject: Re: nanosleep resolution, jiffies vs microseconds From: Darren Hart To: lkml In-Reply-To: <20041208171420.GD1270@us.ibm.com> References: <1102524468.16986.30.camel@farah.beaverton.ibm.com> <20041208171420.GD1270@us.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2004 10:30:54 -0800 Message-Id: <1102530654.4060.13.camel@farah.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 IBM Linux Technology Center