Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 21:14:09 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net>, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, bde@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/13644 Message-ID: <200001240214.VAA45195@rtfm.newton> In-Reply-To: <20000123200807.A19917@dan.emsphone.com> from Dan Nelson at "Jan 23, 2000 08:08:07 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Nelson once stated: =In the last episode (Jan 23), Mikhail Teterin said: => =FreeBSD is clearly not capable of hard real-time. If I remember => =correctly, neither are any of the operating systems from which you => =quoted man pages. That makes *all* of those man pages inaccurate. => => In other words, we found a flaw in the most (all?) Unix => Inimplementations? cluding FreeBSD. Alright. = =If you want to call it a flaw, then yes. The kernel always has priority =over user processes. I understand. And this will also happen in case of a simple printf(). What I see, however, with select() is that it _consistently_ takes 9-10 msecs longer then specified to return. On an idle machine... Someone mentioned, that the number of ticks is, actually, rounded up. Perhaps, it should be rounded down? -mi To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001240214.VAA45195>