From: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@gmail.com>
To: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@googlemail.com>
Cc: "Roman Zippel" <zippel@linux-m68k.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@gmail.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"john stultz" <johnstul@us.ibm.com>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME?
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:27:33 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e2e108260806240227s659fb238t3a105f095773095a@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cfd18e0f0806240127y105d759aye6b60715e74b823@mail.gmail.com>
>> nor by adjtimex() (this last one is used by ntpd).
>
> That surprised me a little. So gradual adjustments to the time made
> by adjtime() / adjtimex() really don't affect nanosleep()?
Does the adjtime() system call still exist ? I could not find any
information about this system call in the 2.6.25 kernel source code.
Frequency adjustments made via the adjtimex() system call do affect
nanosleep() of course (via timex::freq and/or timex::tick). Stepwise
time adjustments, whether gradual or not, should not affect
nanosleep().
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-24 9:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-22 7:35 Michael Kerrisk
2008-06-23 8:34 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-06-23 9:48 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-06-23 11:56 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-06-24 5:08 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-06-24 5:18 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-06-23 12:43 ` Roman Zippel
2008-06-24 5:39 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-06-24 8:01 ` Bart Van Assche
2008-06-24 8:27 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-06-24 9:27 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2008-06-24 9:31 ` Michael Kerrisk
2008-06-25 6:13 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-06-25 6:16 ` Michael Kerrisk
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=e2e108260806240227s659fb238t3a105f095773095a@mail.gmail.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@gmail.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=mtk.manpages@gmail.com \
--cc=mtk.manpages@googlemail.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.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®