[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue
From: |
Gotthard, Petr |
Subject: |
RE: RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:58:15 +0200 |
> After you tried the Petr solution I would advise you to
> add an usleep(5 * 1000) BEFORE ticking the first time
> (may be put before the while loop) this may leads you
> to grantArrived with no further sleep most of the time, thus
> you'll drop the number of tick too.
I think the most optimal solution is without any sleep. You could save a
millisecond by using usleep(4*1000) instead. ;-)
Why don't you do just:
nextEventRequest( ... )
while( true )
{
tick(1.0, 0.0);
if( grantArrived )
break;
}
Such tick would wait only until the grant arrives. Not a single
millisecond more.
Petr
- Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Pierre Siron, 2009/06/02
- Re: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Michael Raab, 2009/06/16
- RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Gotthard, Petr, 2009/06/16
- Re: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Michael Raab, 2009/06/16
- RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Gotthard, Petr, 2009/06/16
- Re: RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Michael Raab, 2009/06/16
- RE: RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Gotthard, Petr, 2009/06/16
- Re: RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Eric Noulard, 2009/06/16
- RE: RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue,
Gotthard, Petr <=
- Re: RE: RE: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Eric Noulard, 2009/06/16
Re: Re: [certi-dev] CERTI performance issue, Eric Noulard, 2009/06/16