Re: When did High-Resolution Timers hit mainline?

["Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>]

Hi Bart,

Thanks for taking a look at this.

On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Bart Van Assche
<bart.vanassche@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:08 AM, Michael Kerrisk
> <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>   The Software Clock, HZ, and Jiffies
>>       The accuracy of various system calls that set timeouts,  (e.g.,
>>       select(2),   sigtimedwait(2))   and  measure  CPU  time  (e.g.,
>>       getrusage(2)) is limited by  the  resolution  of  the  software
>>       clock,  a clock maintained by the kernel which measures time in
>>       jiffies.  The size of a jiffy is determined by the value of the
>>       kernel constant HZ.
>
> Maybe "size of a jiffy" should be replaced by "duration of a jiffy" ?

Actually, IMO size feels better in this context.

> An explanation of the impact of CONFIG_NO_HZ is missing.

I'm not sure whether it's needed here.  Can you say a little more
about why you think something needs to be said (and perhaps even
suggest some text then)?

> You also missed the fact that since the 2.6 kernel there are two
> constants related to time resolution, namely HZ and USER_HZ. HZ is the
> frequency of the timer interrupt, and 1/USER_HZ is the time resolution
> for system calls that use jiffies as time unit (e.g. the five values
> returned by the times() system call). The time resolution of e.g. the
> select() and poll() system calls is 1.0/HZ since the timeout for these
> system calls is specified as a struct timeval or struct timespec.

Good point!  I will come up with some text for this.

Cheers,

Michael

-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html
Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html