On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Stephane Chazelas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:22:48AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
>> Okay -- as a first step to resolving this, I've adjusted the text in
>> time.7, including adding a mention of HRTs. The text that I plan to
>> put in
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:22:48AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk wrote:
> Okay -- as a first step to resolving this, I've adjusted the text in
> time.7, including adding a mention of HRTs. The text that I plan to
> put in man-pages-3.01 is shown below. Does it look okay to you
> Stephane?
[...]
Michael
As the last step of resolving this bug, I removed the entire paragraph
that discusses HZ, and added the following paragraph under NOTES:
If the interval specified in req is not an exact multiple of
the granularity underlying clock (see time(7)), then the inter-
val will b
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Stephane Chazelas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:10:00AM +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
>> >> > r
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 09:10:00AM +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 fir
Okay -- as a first step to resolving this, I've adjusted the text in
time.7, including adding a mention of HRTs. The text that I plan to
put in man-pages-3.01 is shown below. Does it look okay to you
Stephane?
The Software Clock, HZ, and Jiffies
The accuracy of various system calls t
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
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
>> >
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 a
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Stephane Chazelas
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Package: manpages-dev
> Version: 2.79-4
> Severity: wishlist
>
>
> The BUGS section in nanosleep(2) gives:
>
> BUGS
> The current implementation of nanosleep() is based on the
> normal kernel timer mechanism
Package: manpages-dev
Version: 2.79-4
Severity: wishlist
The BUGS section in nanosleep(2) gives:
BUGS
The current implementation of nanosleep() is based on the
normal kernel timer mechanism, which has a resolution of
1/HZ s (see time(7)). Therefore, nanosleep() pauses
11 matches
Mail list logo
