On Nov 21 01:12, Mark Geisert wrote: > Hi Corinna, > > On 11/18/2024 4:22 AM, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > > > Jon, would you mind to take a look, please? > > I appreciate the additional eyes, thanks. > > > This looks good to me, just one question... > > > > On Nov 12 22:03, Mark Geisert wrote: > [...] > > > + /* Delay a short time so PdhCQD in caller will have data to collect > > > */ > > > + Sleep (16/*ms*/); /* let other procs run; one|more yield()s not > > > enough */ > > > > Is there a reason you specificially chose 16 msecs here? > > > > I'm asking because the usual clock tick is roughly 15.x msecs. > > Any Sleep() > 0 but < 16 results in a sleep of a single clock tick, i.e., > > 15 ms. Occassionally 2 ticks, ~31 msecs, 1 to 5 out of 100 runs. > > > > If you choose a value of 15 msecs, the probability of a Sleep() taking > > two ticks is much higher and can be 1 out of 2 Sleep(). > ^^^^^^ > lower, I think
No, higher. In a low load scenario Sleep (1) --> < 5% will take two or more clock ticks Sleep (15) --> up to 50 % will take two or more clock ticks Sleep (16) --> 100% will take two or more clock ticks Corinna
