X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 724E03847717
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cygwin.com;
	s=default; t=1702684002;
	bh=Ng05cOvIEMgUFBMVkitIkJLqlJYVPBJQbKtlcc4mzGw=;
	h=Date:Subject:To:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe:
	 List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:
	 From;
	b=Rhw2BfEoRm57shks3twWZk8afLwaaF4Ao+ZkRokYnpn7FmuLulO/93USsOjFr+TJB
	 CEkrHXNTQGlZdQS8NYvbKHf2ArBmjKK+TbZ2vTCgVE0XocBFVKtibEXSuwivYyILV2
	 xJCft4zf4p6Fvd5+7xKei67vQwdBD5SH8gSOsB5E=
X-Original-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D43B33858C52
ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org D43B33858C52
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1702683964; cv=none;
 b=mBj1OEEwcwjsMrMJILLllMNLqseNRu906l2SKPwWXKQjjKRuMzcp5qLIutovX0uSHMYVFuyASx+rRqf85Wo/FqAMS7yEDKU7mosZ5vlqU55sjUffY8OUMrKEoHbH+zxxbMHE3iDmi6gb3Xnh/23qLxA1JtcdNZHA2s3X9BF5W6I=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key;
 t=1702683964; c=relaxed/simple;
 bh=wJK++w4MAeohbl9QtStwgbmshx5WXzrwRTCC2YuzWZA=;
 h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:From;
 b=FMOvh801mww32JCZKQT7xlniLizXXq4wh/6xG5EnIkXInseHjAFhlejOsuIQEjCYknWuAXZ/gVtKrOtnzCP6IGshiYJqndejnEDOW9Ai4gyMgMlCGywGf13CBuLr4dPdNSH9jwGzZky2v+NUOoA1dO/R8QKRSs4+DUM1KoZpDDY=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org
X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1702683961-24039d337016d120001-w5GHUG
X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 128.119.240.136
Message-ID: <910db078-35f2-00f8-0654-59c3c58535e3@cs.umass.edu>
X-Barracuda-RBL-Trusted-Forwarder: 172.26.65.13
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2023 18:46:01 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.15.1
Subject: Re: How efficient is 'sleep'?
Content-Language: en-US
X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: How efficient is 'sleep'?
To: Backwoods BC <completely DOT and DOT totally DOT trash AT gmail DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <CAKwdsS-eM0APxDhbFNq6SBVKK51hteMgKrwmzm-ZNNEUnaON=A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKwdsS-eM0APxDhbFNq6SBVKK51hteMgKrwmzm-ZNNEUnaON=A@mail.gmail.com>
X-Barracuda-Connect: mailsrv.cs.umass.edu[128.119.240.136]
X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1702683961
X-Barracuda-Encrypted: ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256
X-Barracuda-URL: https://barramail.cs.umass.edu:443/cgi-mod/mark.cgi
X-Barracuda-BRTS-Status: 1
X-Virus-Scanned: by bsmtpd at cs.umass.edu
X-Barracuda-Scan-Msg-Size: 1591
X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00
X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using global scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0
 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=5.7 tests=
X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.3.118136
 Rule breakdown below
 pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL,
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS, NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS, TXREP,
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.30
List-Id: General Cygwin discussions and problem reports <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <https://cygwin.com/pipermail/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://cygwin.com/mailman/listinfo/cygwin>,
 <mailto:cygwin-request AT cygwin DOT com?subject=subscribe>
From: Eliot Moss via Cygwin <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-To: Eliot Moss <moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: "Cygwin" <cygwin-bounces+archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>

On 12/15/2023 4:55 PM, Backwoods BC via Cygwin wrote:
> 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

You could strace on it to see what system calls it makes, but I am
pretty sure it sets up a timer interrupt and then waits for an event.
Very efficient.  It does not, for example, continually read the clock
until the requested amount of time has passed.

The more interesting question is this.  If you coded something like:

while true; do x; sleep 60; done

are you ok with x starting more than 60 seconds apart, because the time
to execute x itself, to fork and wait for the processes, etc., gets added
into each iteration?  If you prefer the invocations of x start at the start
of each minute, then you need to calculate, on each iteration, how long to
sleep.  There's loads of info on this stackoverflow page:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/645992/sleep-until-a-specific-time-date

Cheers - Eliot Moss

-- 
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