Date: Wed, 29 Feb 2012 16:58:54 -0800 From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> To: Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: select/poll/usleep precision on FreeBSD vs Linux vs OSX Message-ID: <20120301005854.CB4AC1CC32@mail.bitblocks.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:33:46 %2B1100." <20120301071145.O879@besplex.bde.org> References: <20120229194042.GA10921@onelab2.iet.unipi.it> <20120301071145.O879@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 01 Mar 2012 11:33:46 +1100 Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Linux and OSX must be using busy-waiting or expensive timer > reprogramming for short timeouts to work. Linux-2.6.17 or later have two options: CONFIG_NO_HZ for on demand timer interrupts (to reduce power use on idle systems) and CONFIG_HIGH_RES_TIMERS for as accurate timers as h/w would allow. And yes, timers are reprogrammed (as per a June 23, 2006 kerneltrap.org article).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120301005854.CB4AC1CC32>