In article <[email protected]>, Frank Kardel <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi ! > > >I am pretty skeptical by the hardwired constant of 20 (clockticks). At >the usual/common clock interrupt rate of 100 Hz this is 200ms. > >So any nanosleep below 200ms will be a kernel busy loop... > >For sleeps less than 1 (at most two) clock ticks this would be a crude >workaround until we have better mechanisms like timed >interrupts/tickless kernel. > >With today processors 20ms is a LONG time, busy waiting wastes a lot of >otherwise useful cycles/power. Setting up a timed interrupt should be >well below 100us using todays HW and taking the interrupt also (save for >16MHz 68020 machines and similar ones).
This should not be a fixed constant, it should be related to HZ and quantum. christos
