[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[coreutils] slimmer alternative to sleep command?
From: |
Chris Jones |
Subject: |
[coreutils] slimmer alternative to sleep command? |
Date: |
Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:36:32 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) |
Given a bash script that runs an infinite loop such as:
do forever:
get data
print data
sleep 1
done
I was wondering if I could avoid the overhead of starting and
terminating the sleep child process by using a different strategy.
All I need to do is ask the kernel not to dispatch the process running
my script for a second or so.
Instead of that, I'm having the kernel go through the motions of
creating an address space (whose only purpose is to "sleep" - i.e. do
nothing for one second) - and then terminate this address space.
Isn't that a rather disproportionate use of resources relative to what I
want to do?
Isn't there a way I could do this via a system call that would probably
be orders of magnitude faster and less resource-hungry?
Or am I barking the wrong tree?
Thanks
CJ
- [coreutils] slimmer alternative to sleep command?,
Chris Jones <=