On Tue, 2013-11-05 at 13:03 -0500, Mouse wrote: > > But then I read BSD's setitimer man page, and was suddenly very happy > > I run something else. (Honestly, you're on the runqueue, you know > > how to set timers more finely than 100Hz and you already expect to be > > awake for the next 10ms, maybe do the trivial amount of integer math > > required to kick the timer interrupt both when the user asked for it > > and on the next scheduler tick.) > > You don't say which BSD, nor which version; there is no single "BSD's > setitimer manpage". But at least some of the BSDs run on hardware that > simply cannot do what you suggest.
Which? Genuinely curious. I checked Free and Open, which were nearly identical. Net has similar verbiage. And, if I'm being entirely fair, 'man 7 time' on Linux says something similar about rounding being possible, but also mentions jiffies becoming 1kHz and that timers aren't forced to jiffies on (what I consider) modern common architectures since, wow, bit over six years ago. I still wouldn't recommend running with 100Hz jiffies if I wanted a machine that could do realtime graphics, but the patch should be an improvement to fairness even if one does do that. Obviously there's a tradeoff if you're trying to run on something in the tens-of-MHz-or-less domain since 1000 IRQs per second starts to become a significant overhead, but I mean, VMS had dynamic ticks since the early 90s... - ajax _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
