Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 13:15:46 +0000 From: Robert Woolley <robert.woolley@rwoolley.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: usleep Message-ID: <20080225131546.0d9d2f22@gumby.homeunix.com.> In-Reply-To: <200802251039.59767.wundram@beenic.net> References: <200802221558.42443.sharadc@in.niksun.com> <200802221437.48293.wundram@beenic.net> <200802251440.56435.sharadc@in.niksun.com> <200802251039.59767.wundram@beenic.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 10:39:59 +0100 "Heiko Wundram (Beenic)" <wundram@beenic.net> wrote: > Am Montag, 25. Februar 2008 10:10:56 schrieb Sharad Chandra: > > So does it mean, freebsd has limitation. sleeping will only work > > for its value more than 1 milli sec because % of +- error value is > > comparitivly low? I am curious to know, is there any method which > > sleeps for few microseconds. Some one please give me link where to > > look for "select". > > No, this does not mean that FreeBSD has a limitation, but rather that > FreeBSD is not a real-time operating system. You'll see the similar > behaviour on pretty much any other operating system that is _not_ a > RTOS It's actually not a distinguishing feature of RTOSs. I haven't worked on them for a few years, but when I did, both pSOS and VxWorks had this limitation. The important thing is that RTOSs handle interrupts well. In traditional real-time software, sleeping is something that happens in non-critical background tasks.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080225131546.0d9d2f22>