Hi,

On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Pradyumna Sampath <pradysam@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, I just moved the HZ value from 250 to 1000 and the accuracy has
> improved significantly from 5-7 to 1-2 miliseconds. But IMHO, we
> should still change schedule_timeout to schedule_hrtimeout for better
> accuracy on the timeout because in many cases 1-2 miliseconds is just
> not good enough.

Ok, as promised.

Here is a dirty hack that I made which basically resulted in 2 things.
1) My test programs accurace really really improved. The timeout on
the mq_timedrecieve this time around within the tune of 20-30uS.
2) My actual application exploded all over the place, with mq_*
functions complaining of timing out etc etc .. Just a bad messup.

So (1) confirms that sched_hrtimeout could be a good idea. (2)
Confirms that this patch is really terrible and it would be great if
someone could either come up with something that is more robust or I
will be happy to take suggestions on where and how I should make
changes.

regards
/prady

-- 
http://www.prady.in