Adam Olsen <rhamph <at> gmail.com> writes: > Can you try with a call to sched_yield(), rather than nanosleep()? It > should have the same benefit but without as much performance hit. > > If it works, but is still too much hit, try tuning the checkinterval > to see if you can find an acceptable throughput/responsiveness > balance. > I tried that, and it had no effect whatsoever. I suppose it would make an effect on a single CPU or an otherwise heavily loaded SMP system but that's not the secnario we care about.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4