From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261532AbVFZSOU (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:14:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261534AbVFZSOU (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:14:20 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.de ([213.165.64.20]:27356 "HELO mail.gmx.net") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261532AbVFZSOR (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jun 2005 14:14:17 -0400 X-Authenticated: #14349625 Message-Id: <5.2.1.1.2.20050626201018.02d2df48@pop.gmx.net> X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.1 Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:14:10 +0200 To: Alan Cox , linux-os@analogic.com From: Mike Galbraith Subject: Re: Possible spin-problem in nanosleep() Cc: Andreas Schwab , Linux Kernel Mailing List In-Reply-To: <1119806289.28649.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1119546715.17066.20.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 0525-4, 06/24/2005), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org At 06:18 PM 6/26/2005 +0100, Alan Cox wrote: >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) (precisely stated [again])