Stone wrote: > > sure, just changing it to 'usleep(10000)' works too. Is there a > reason to avoid > the ringbuffer infrastructure? > > No reason in particular, I just wanted to test which one worked best > with performance. Thanks for the patch. :) I tried the 1us -> (1000|10000)us sleep approach first, before using the ringbuffer timeouts -- saw no noticeable difference wrt performance. 10ms timeouts seemed to be enough (it's the resolution of a HZ==100 kernel) and gave similar interrupt and cs numbers as w/ low-res timers. artur
