DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 8A24E3858C52
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 13:55:26 -0800
Message-ID: <CAKwdsS-eM0APxDhbFNq6SBVKK51hteMgKrwmzm-ZNNEUnaON=A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: How efficient is 'sleep'?
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: Backwoods BC via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: Backwoods BC <completely DOT and DOT totally DOT trash AT gmail DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

I have quite a few "service-like" scripts that I put into the
background and then have them wake up on a regular basis to do
something. I use 'sleep' for the timing of the wakeup periods.

My question is: How efficient is 'sleep'? I know of other OSes that
just set a timer flag and the process isn't allocated any CPU time
until the timer expires.

I know that creating a service or even using Task Scheduler are more
"proper" ways of doing this, but they are also much more work and
would require a significant learning curve as my background is
embedded systems, not Windows. I know that my lazy way probably has a
penalty, but just how bad is it?

Thanks

-- 
Problem reports:      https://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                  https://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:        https://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:     https://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple