[time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 66, Issue 6

John Miles jmiles at pop.net
Mon Jan 4 01:42:17 UTC 2010


It's not an issue, except possibly vis-a-vis battery life in a laptop.

-- john, KE5FX

> -----Original Message-----
> From: time-nuts-bounces at febo.com [mailto:time-nuts-bounces at febo.com]On
> Behalf Of Steve Rooke
> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 5:23 PM
> To: Discussion of precise time and frequency measurement
> Subject: Re: [time-nuts] time-nuts Digest, Vol 66, Issue 6
>
>
> 2010/1/4 Mark Sims <holrum at hotmail.com>:
> > As far as the time slicing goes,  the code is continually doing
> Sleep(0) calls.  These give the time slice back to Windows.    
> You can't get much more multitask friendly than that.
> >
> > If Windows has nothing better to do,  it gives the time back to
> Heather (which if there is nothing else going on,  does another
> Sleep(0) (or Sleep(#) if /tw=# is given on the command line).  
> The idle time would otherwise be spent in the Windows idle
> loop...   either way,  the idle time gets wasted somewhere.
>
> But doesn't that in itself generate a rapid loop of system calls when
> LH is not doing any processing. There is a difference between leaving
> the OS idle than just wasting time in a rapid busy loop with the CPU
> polling LH to see if it has any work to do without any sleep time in
> between.
>
> For a DOS application this really makes no odds, as you say, but then
> we are really not talking about a multiuser multitasking system.
>
> Steve Rooke
> --
> Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD
> A man with one clock knows what time it is;
> A man with two clocks is never quite sure.
>
> _______________________________________________
> time-nuts mailing list -- time-nuts at febo.com
> To unsubscribe, go to
> https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts
> and follow the instructions there.
>




More information about the time-nuts mailing list