Re: Bug Report?

[Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>]

Helmut Metzdorf <h-j-m@tap.de> writes:

> so, what to do now?

Assuming I understand you correctly, and this is a program of your
own, add a call to nanosleep(2) at an appropriate point.  You can tune
the positioning and duration of the sleep to balance your needs.

Note that what would be really nice here would be something like a
"defer()" which just handed the rest of the processes timeslice back
to the scheduler, but I don't know if such an animal exists.  Perhaps
nice(1) will get the same effect.

The reason to prefer defer() to nanosleep() is that if there are no
other processes that need to do useful work, you don't want to be
sleeping.

Oh, and if you're using IDE drives (and presuming switching to SCSI
isn't an option :>), you might investigate hdparm.  It could be that
one of it's options could help (specifically check out interrupt
unmasking, but be careful...)

-- 
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu> PGP=E80E0D04F521A094 532B97F5D64E3930