Re: [boost] Delayed response for sleep function
This is interesting and helpful — yes! Although, it sounds like it’s more pertinent to software timers, right? I’ve done some work with hardware RTCs, many of which drift by 4ms/day, others by a few ms/year. (For physical quartz clocks, drift is a function of temperature and crystal frequency.) I had assumed that these clocks were more-or-less ubiquitous on computers today. Anyway, best regards and thank you for your detailed response. WL
On Jun 21, 2022, at 4:12 AM, Neil Groves
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, at 4:42 PM, William Linkmeyer via Boost wrote:
This is interesting and helpful — yes!
Although, it sounds like it’s more pertinent to software timers, right?
I’ve done some work with hardware RTCs, many of which drift by 4ms/day, others by a few ms/year. (For physical quartz clocks, drift is a function of temperature and crystal frequency.)
I had assumed that these clocks were more-or-less ubiquitous on computers today.
The drift you're noticing is software alright. The perceived inaccuracy isn't with the hardware clocks employed. On the contrary. The clocks are the ~accurate reference point that allow you to observe the latency/jitter involved with scheduling threads at runners in your operating system. This should be relatively obvious to you even before you asked the question: if you thought the actual clock is drifting, it would make it inspired to measure latencies.
Anyway, best regards and thank you for your detailed response.
WL
Seth
On Tue, Jun 21, 2022, at 11:33 PM, Seth via Boost wrote:
The drift you're noticing is software alright. The perceived inaccuracy isn't with the hardware clocks employed. On the contrary. The clocks are the ~accurate reference point that allow you to observe the latency/jitter involved with scheduling threads at runners in your operating system.
That was supposed to say "at t timer intervals"
participants (2)
-
Seth
-
William Linkmeyer