On Thu, 13 Apr 2000, Matt Luker wrote:
> 2) Is the behavior I'm seeing simply the limitations of the linux
> threading coming out? Why can't the thread seem to sleep when I call
> a sleep of less than 5ms? Is there something strange going on in the
> native threads that would make them not respond to the sleep call?
round(int foo) { return (foo + 5) / 10; }
Looks like something is rounding it to 1/HZ resolution...
> 3) And ... is this just a java problem? Before you jump on this
> and say, "YES, YES, YES! For the love of God YES!" I did manage to get
> some late night access to a friend's Ultra Sparc 2 (it has two processors)
> and running the same application there experience NO problems and
> performance was stunning.
man 2 nanosleep:
BUGS
The current implementation of nanosleep is based on the
normal kernel timer mechanism, which has a resolution of
1/HZ s (i.e, 10 ms on Linux/i386 and 1 ms on Linux/Alpha).
Therefore, nanosleep pauses always for at least the speci�
fied time, however it can take up to 10 ms longer than
specified until the process becomes runnable again. For
the same reason, the value returned in case of a delivered
signal in *rem is usually rounded to the next larger mul�
tiple of 1/HZ s.
> 4) Is this a hardware problem? I.e. despite being proud of my little
> setup, is it still not enough to support this application?
Depends on your viewpoint... Linux on Alpha h/w should at least handle
this situation 10x better ;)
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/dmentre/smp-howto/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
