From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 1 09:45:22 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id JAA15230 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:45:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.50]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id JAA15223 for ; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 09:45:19 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id KAA11569; Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:28:47 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199704011728.KAA11569@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: Internal clock To: gbeach@cybernet.com Date: Tue, 1 Apr 1997 10:28:47 -0700 (MST) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: <3340C326.6150@cybernet.com> from "Glenn Beach" at Apr 1, 97 09:11:18 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > I have been searching for an answer to the following question. Doug > White at questions@freebsd.org said that you may be able to help. So > here it goes: > > How can I make time measurements in increments smaller than the clock > tick? Specifically, I am running BSD on a Pentium PC which has 128 > clock ticks per second. Is there any way to improve the resolution? The clock can be set faster, and generally is for the kernel profiling code. What exactly do you need it for? If for profiling, then it's already coded up for you... if for timers and so on, the timer will fire at the expected time, but that won't necessarily context switch the process which was waiting for the event, only mark it ready to run. If your system is heavily loaded, it may take more than 10ms for your process to start running again. Regards, Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.