Stefan Sayer wrote: > Hi Raphael, > > even though the comment had been wrong before (2 us, not ms), I am not > sure whether I would change this without testing the accuracy of the > timer in high load situations. With the current value I have seen quite > good accuracy, what were your results with the value of 2ms? > > The point is that there is no need to go sleeping for 2 ms.... Most of the time, calling nanosleep with such a value will end up in a very expensive wait (under some circumstances, even an active wait based on CPU loop...).
If you are unsure, you can of course, test this extensively, but i am pretty sure that it is safe to correct this. -Raphael. > Stefan > > o [EMAIL PROTECTED] [06/04/08 10:21]: > >> Author: rco >> Date: 2008-06-04 10:21:07 +0200 (Wed, 04 Jun 2008) >> New Revision: 1004 >> >> Modified: >> branches/1.0.0/core/AmMediaProcessor.cpp >> Log: >> - fixed minor bug. (trunk 1002:1003) >> >> >> Modified: branches/1.0.0/core/AmMediaProcessor.cpp >> =================================================================== >> --- branches/1.0.0/core/AmMediaProcessor.cpp 2008-06-04 08:19:31 UTC (rev >> 1003) >> +++ branches/1.0.0/core/AmMediaProcessor.cpp 2008-06-04 08:21:07 UTC (rev >> 1004) >> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ >> sdiff.tv_sec = diff.tv_sec; >> sdiff.tv_nsec = diff.tv_usec * 1000; >> >> - if(sdiff.tv_nsec > 2000) // 2 ms >> + if(sdiff.tv_nsec > 2000000) // 2 ms >> nanosleep(&sdiff,&rem); >> } >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Semsdev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev >> > > _______________________________________________ Semsdev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/semsdev
