[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cfd18e0f0806240231j3dd95c5fs86af59b9c92d9f76@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:31:03 +0200
From: "Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...glemail.com>
To: "Bart Van Assche" <bart.vanassche@...il.com>
Cc: "Roman Zippel" <zippel@...ux-m68k.org>,
"Michael Kerrisk" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"john stultz" <johnstul@...ibm.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME?
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Bart Van Assche
<bart.vanassche@...il.com> wrote:
>>> nor by adjtimex() (this last one is used by ntpd).
>>
>> That surprised me a little. So gradual adjustments to the time made
>> by adjtime() / adjtimex() really don't affect nanosleep()?
>
> Does the adjtime() system call still exist ? I could not find any
> information about this system call in the 2.6.25 kernel source code.
It's the glibc interface on top of adtimex(). (Sorry, maybe I should
have writte andjtime(3) to be clearer.)
> Frequency adjustments made via the adjtimex() system call do affect
> nanosleep() of course (via timex::freq and/or timex::tick). Stepwise
> time adjustments, whether gradual or not, should not affect
> nanosleep().
Ahhh good -- that makes sense. Thanks for that info.
--
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
man-pages online: http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/online_pages.html
Found a bug? http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/reporting_bugs.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists