Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759262AbYFXJbU (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:31:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753200AbYFXJbH (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:31:07 -0400 Received: from wx-out-0506.google.com ([66.249.82.232]:58212 "EHLO wx-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752989AbYFXJbG (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Jun 2008 05:31:06 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=QTVoISag7B1RbBCZOf+wjE6mv1ojk5ltg89Z7g0JLiPZKea7me6QHZC6Wxq5UPb5sj yRaHDIN1cvu18csBcK/LlSy/nsj8fQrWHK4/k12uy2TWTxxk9pWU0QfuaTGCQ3PTXn35 wcGDWn5jtrpUSefI2KlgHzBfaOGYrhDMumUyg= Message-ID: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:31:03 +0200 From: "Michael Kerrisk" To: "Bart Van Assche" Subject: Re: nanosleep() uses CLOCK_MONOTONIC, should be CLOCK_REALTIME? Cc: "Roman Zippel" , "Michael Kerrisk" , lkml , "Thomas Gleixner" , "john stultz" , "Ingo Molnar" In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <485E00CD.9060503@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1274 Lines: 30 On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Bart Van Assche 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/