Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Jul 2,  8:04pm, David Holland wrote:
} Subject: Re: nanosleep() for shorted than schedule slice
} On Sun, Jul 02, 2017 at 12:54:52PM +0200, Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
}  > > I wonder if it would make sense for nanosleep(2) to check that requested
}  > > sleeping time is shorter than a schedule slice, and if it is, spin the
}  > > CPU instead of scheduling another process. Any opinion on this?
}  > 
}  > No, that's wrong. It's also been discussed before.
} 
} How is that wrong? It was always more or less the point of nanosleep.

     If you start spinning right after the start of a timeslice,
you could spin for close to an entire timeslice.  On a modern
multi-GHz CPU that's a tremendous number of wasted cycles (also
doesn't help power consumption).

}-- End of excerpt from David Holland