From: "Vitezslav Samel" <samel@mail.cz>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 09:30:27 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030314083027.GA28082@pc11.op.pod.cz> (raw)
Hi!
When playing with select() timeout values I found that granularity
of nanosleep() in 2.5.64 kernel bumps to 256 msec. Trying to get finer
granularity it ends up sleeping to the next multiple of 256 msec
(only for values > 256 msec): see this (for three last kernels) (measured with
attached program):
2.5.62 2.5.63 2.5.64
------ ------ ------
nanosleep(0.000): delay = 0.000 s 0.001 s 0.000 s
nanosleep(0.050): delay = 0.050 s 0.049 s 0.049 s
nanosleep(0.100): delay = 0.100 s 0.099 s 0.099 s
nanosleep(0.150): delay = 0.150 s 0.149 s 0.149 s
nanosleep(0.200): delay = 0.200 s 0.199 s 0.199 s
nanosleep(0.250): delay = 0.250 s 0.249 s 0.249 s
nanosleep(0.300): delay = 0.300 s 0.299 s 0.511 s
nanosleep(0.350): delay = 0.350 s 0.349 s 0.512 s
nanosleep(0.400): delay = 0.400 s 0.399 s 0.511 s
nanosleep(0.450): delay = 0.450 s 0.449 s 0.512 s
nanosleep(0.500): delay = 0.500 s 0.499 s 0.511 s
nanosleep(0.550): delay = 0.550 s 0.549 s 0.767 s
nanosleep(0.600): delay = 0.600 s 0.599 s 0.767 s
nanosleep(0.650): delay = 0.650 s 0.649 s 0.767 s
nanosleep(0.700): delay = 0.700 s 0.699 s 0.767 s
nanosleep(0.750): delay = 0.750 s 0.749 s 0.767 s
nanosleep(0.800): delay = 0.800 s 0.799 s 1.023 s
nanosleep(0.850): delay = 0.850 s 0.849 s 1.023 s
nanosleep(0.900): delay = 0.900 s 0.899 s 1.023 s
nanosleep(0.950): delay = 0.950 s 0.949 s 1.023 s
nanosleep(1.000): delay = 1.000 s 0.999 s 1.023 s
nanosleep(1.050): delay = 1.050 s 1.049 s 1.279 s
nanosleep(1.100): delay = 1.100 s 1.099 s 1.279 s
nanosleep(1.150): delay = 1.150 s 1.149 s 1.279 s
nanosleep(1.200): delay = 1.200 s 1.199 s 1.279 s
nanosleep(1.250): delay = 1.250 s 1.249 s 1.279 s
nanosleep(1.300): delay = 1.300 s 1.299 s 1.535 s
nanosleep(1.350): delay = 1.350 s 1.349 s 1.535 s
nanosleep(1.400): delay = 1.400 s 1.399 s 1.535 s
nanosleep(1.450): delay = 1.450 s 1.449 s 1.535 s
nanosleep(1.500): delay = 1.500 s 1.499 s 1.535 s
nanosleep(1.550): delay = 1.550 s 1.549 s 1.791 s
nanosleep(1.600): delay = 1.600 s 1.599 s 1.791 s
nanosleep(1.650): delay = 1.650 s 1.649 s 1.791 s
nanosleep(1.700): delay = 1.700 s 1.699 s 1.791 s
nanosleep(1.750): delay = 1.750 s 1.749 s 1.791 s
nanosleep(1.800): delay = 1.800 s 1.799 s 2.047 s
nanosleep(1.850): delay = 1.850 s 1.849 s 2.047 s
nanosleep(1.900): delay = 1.900 s 1.899 s 2.047 s
nanosleep(1.950): delay = 1.950 s 1.949 s 2.047 s
nanosleep(2.000): delay = 2.000 s 1.999 s 2.047 s
....
and so on.
In 2.5.63 there is a conversion to POSIX timers, but that change is O.K.
In the 2.5.64 changelog I didn't found any eye-hitting change.
Cheers,
Vita
------------------------------------------------------------------
#include <stdio.h>
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/time.h>
#include <errno.h>
int main (void) {
struct timespec req, rem;
struct timeval old, new;
long tim;
long delay;
int i;
gettimeofday(&old, NULL);
for (delay = 0; delay <= 2000000000L; delay += 50000000L) {
rem.tv_sec = 0;
rem.tv_nsec = 0;
req.tv_sec = delay / 1000000000L;
req.tv_nsec = delay % 1000000000L;
for (i = 0; i < 2; i++) { /* get only the second measured value */
int ret;
gettimeofday(&old, NULL);
ret = nanosleep(&req, &rem);
gettimeofday(&new, NULL);
tim = (new.tv_sec * 1000000 + new.tv_usec) - (old.tv_sec * 1000000 + old.tv_usec);
if (ret == -1) {
if (errno == EINTR) {
printf("EINTR\n");
i--;
} else {
perror("nanosleep()");
exit(1);
}
}
}
printf("nanosleep(%ld.%03ld): delay = %ld.%03ld s\n", req.tv_sec, req.tv_nsec / 1000000, tim / 1000000, (tim % 1000000) / 1000);
fflush(stdout);
}
return 0;
}
next reply other threads:[~2003-03-14 8:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-14 8:30 Vitezslav Samel [this message]
2003-03-17 7:45 [Linux-ia64] Re: [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 (was: [PATCH] settimeofday() not synchronised with gettimeofday()) Vitezslav Samel
2003-03-17 13:55 ` [BUG] nanosleep() granularity bumps up in 2.5.64 Tim Schmielau
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030314083027.GA28082@pc11.op.pod.cz \
--to=samel@mail.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®