> C. Scott Ananian wrote:
> > and I really doubt that many people (without the use
> > of said test suite) would be able to tell that their sub-jiffy timings
> > were saturating early at the mark just before the next jiffy because the
> > CPU was slowing the clock.
>
> It does make smooth video animation a bit jittery, but it's not the end
> of the world as long as jiffies are still working.
Have you *seen* this? I would think you've have to be animating >100 fps
(faster than our perceptual acuity, which peaks somewhere around 30fps) to
see any intra-jiffy jitter.
> I remember a laptop with power saving totally screwing up the jiffies.
> (Presumably APM support needed to be in the kernel, and it wasn't).
> That was bad, but the above isn't.
Agreed. I think my suggested patch is much better than what's currently
in the kernel, even if it doesn't keep NIST-quality time on every
hardware yet.
--Scott
@ @
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO-(_)-OOo-=-=-=-=-=
C. Scott Ananian: cananian@lcs.mit.edu / Declare the Truth boldly and
Laboratory for Computer Science/Crypto / without hindrance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology /META-PARRESIAS AKOLUTOS:Acts 28:31
-.-. .-.. .. ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. ... -.-. --- - - .- -. .- -. .. .- -.
PGP key available via finger and from http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html