26 May
2009
26 May
'09
8:27 p.m.
Jens M Andreasen schrieb:
On Tue, 2009-05-26 at 21:34 +0200, Ulrich Lorenz
Schlüter wrote:
Oh! It could be that the implementation of nanosleep() has changed then.
At that rate you cannot meet deadlines reliable without hugging on to
the processor, which would then explain why CPU has gone way up for you.
/j
[Seriously, You really are sampling at 10MHz?]
I'll get rid of it although it wasn't any cpu consuming on my old
system. 10MHz oops that's not what I wanted.
What does
this thread do?
The thread is calculating all the gains every 100 nanoseconds.