alarm() vs setitimer() problem?

Richard A Nelson (cowboy@vnet.ibm.com)
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 12:31:22 -0500 (EST)


Is linux 2.4.2-ac19 (and to a lesser extent 2.2.19pre16) doing something
non-standard wrt setitimer?

On light to mid loaded machines (2-8 load average), it seems like I'm
missing some setitimer(REAL) signals !

Running the program using alarm() instead of setitimer(REAL) doesn't
miss events.

Both machines are UP, running glibc 2.2.2 and gcc 2.95.3

on 2.2.19pre16, chaning the interval from 60s to 180s seems to have
removed the problem

on 2.4.2-ac19, using 180s didn't change the problem at all, only running
with alarm() instead solves the problem.

-- 
Rick Nelson
Life'll kill ya                         -- Warren Zevon
Then you'll be dead                     -- Life'll kill ya

- 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/