Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2000 00:24:02 -0500 (EST) From: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: Mikhail Teterin <mi@kot.ne.mediaone.net>, Dan Nelson <dnelson@emsphone.com>, Jason Evans <jasone@canonware.com>, David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>, bde@FreeBSD.ORG, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: kern/13644 Message-ID: <200001240524.AAA46117@rtfm.newton> In-Reply-To: <200001240348.UAA48859@harmony.village.org> from Warner Losh at "Jan 23, 2000 08:48:34 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Warner Losh once stated: =In message <200001240214.VAA45195@rtfm.newton> Mikhail Teterin writes: =: 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? Not again... =Select(2) only guarantees that it will sleep no less than the time =specified for the timeout. Rounding down will break this. Where does it guarantee that? Man-pages say, it is guaranteed to sleep no MORE then the timeout, not less. Is there some other specification, that's different from the man-pages, or are you talking from the implementation point of view? Yours, -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?200001240524.AAA46117>