Re: Timers in application (again)

["Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@earthlink.net>]

Simon Wright wrote:
 
> Looking at the Linux code (kernel/sched.c, function sys_nanosleep())
> it is very hard to see how the effect you describe could possibly be
> achieved, except perhaps with a busy wait -- indeed, Linux does just
> that for RT nanosleeps of <= 2mS, a behaviour I don't think we want to
> retain!

   One of the nicest features of Linux is that you can substitute a
working
clock, assuming that the hardware has one you can get to, and you are
all set.
One nice thing about the Amiga is that you get an interrupt at the
beginning of
every scan line on the display.  But even this only allowed hard
scheduling on a
granularity of tens of microseconds.  Outside of Amigas, most modern
hardware
will give you a clock interrupt about every millisecond at best.  (One
1024th of
a second is pretty common.)