It's not an issue, except possibly vis-a-vis battery life in a laptop. -- john, KE5FX
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]on > Behalf Of Steve Rooke > Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:23 PM > To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement > Subject: Re: [time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 66, Issue 6 > > > 2010/1/4 Mark Sims <[email protected]>: > > As far as the time slicing goes, the code is continually doing > Sleep(0) calls. These give the time slice back to Windows. > You can't get much more multitask friendly than that. > > > > If Windows has nothing better to do, it gives the time back to > Heather (which if there is nothing else going on, does another > Sleep(0) (or Sleep(#) if /tw=# is given on the command line). > The idle time would otherwise be spent in the Windows idle > loop... either way, the idle time gets wasted somewhere. > > But doesn't that in itself generate a rapid loop of system calls when > LH is not doing any processing. There is a difference between leaving > the OS idle than just wasting time in a rapid busy loop with the CPU > polling LH to see if it has any work to do without any sleep time in > between. > > For a DOS application this really makes no odds, as you say, but then > we are really not talking about a multiuser multitasking system. > > Steve Rooke > -- > Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD > A man with one clock knows what time it is; > A man with two clocks is never quite sure. > > _______________________________________________ > time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe, go to > https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts > and follow the instructions there. > _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
