From: Nix <ni...@es...> - 2008-03-17 21:08:38
|
On 17 Mar 2008, Jeff Dike verbalised: > Below is the same patch with another kluge, which cuts down the > requested sleep by 10% in hopes of getting the actual sleep closer to > what's wanted. Eeuuuuw. :) > This is unusable in anything resembling mainline, but I'd like to see > how your various systems react to it. I'm getting very close to the > sleeps I asked for (with slight undersleeping, which is a bug). OK. Tests on host with clocksource pit: bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 5 Slept for 5 seconds. bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 10 Slept for 11 seconds. bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 30 Slept for 31 seconds. bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 60 Slept for 61 seconds. ... so much better than the 4x error without this patch. Tests on host with clocksource tsc: bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 5 Slept for 5 seconds. bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 10 Slept for 10 seconds. bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 30 Slept for 30 seconds. bash-3.2# bin/select-sleep 60 Slept for 61 seconds. Distinctly better than without this patch. (Am I the only person who finds it strange that (some) clocksource hackers are arguing about accuracy problems in the ppm range while we're glad to get an error of `only' single seconds per minute out of it? Maybe next year we can invent the `pendulum' clocksource :) ) -- `The rest is a tale of post and counter-post.' --- Ian Rawlings describes USENET |