On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Michael Kerrisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Stephane, > > On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 11:16 AM, Stephane Chazelas > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 11, 2008 at 08:52:24AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote: >> [...] >>> > I think it should be worth mentionning that since 2.6.16, on >>> > some architectures, the kernel can be configured with high >>> > resolution timers which makes nanosleep(2) a lot more accurate >>> > and voids the first comment above. > > I've certainly verified this in 2.6.26-rc6. The question is exactly > when the change came about. > >> [...] >>> Thanks for your note. Can you provide some further details -- for >>> example, can you tell me any of the following: >>> which architectures? >>> what config options are required? >>> what determines the accuracy that can be achieved with HR timers? >> [...] >> >> Hi Michael, >> >> sorry, I'm not a kernel developper, so I know very little about >> it. I only observed that usleep() became a lot more accurate >> since 2.6.16. > > Was that vanilla kernel 2.6.16? I'm tring to track the places where > varios system calls changed to HRTs.
Hmmm -- I got slightly confused by the fact CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS only seems to have been added in 2.6.21. -- 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
