On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 05:04:56PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote: > } > > I wonder if it would make sense for nanosleep(2) to check > } > > that requested sleeping time is shorter than a schedule > } > > slice, and if it is, spin the CPU instead of scheduling > } > > another process. Any opinion on this? > } > > } > No, that's wrong. It's also been discussed before. > } > } How is that wrong? It was always more or less the point of nanosleep. > > If you start spinning right after the start of a timeslice, > you could spin for close to an entire timeslice. On a modern > multi-GHz CPU that's a tremendous number of wasted cycles (also > doesn't help power consumption).
...huh? What does "right after the start of a timeslice" have to do with it? Anyway, if the requested sleep time is "close to an entire timeslice" then you obviously don't spin. Please don't manufacture nonsense counterexamples. -- David A. Holland [email protected]
