|
|
|
|
|
by TickleSteve
3775 days ago
|
|
I would disagree with that interpretation. I would talk about the duration of the open() call, in the same way as when you're optimising code, you talk about the duration of a function call, not its latency. Sadly, misuse of the term is rife in software circles. Latency is correctly used when talking about how long an ISR takes to start running when provoked by an external stimulus, or how long it takes for a task to be scheduled when made ready. Latency is a very precise term. a syscall, as its name suggests is a 'call', and 'calls' are not considered to be instantaneous. (Edit: instantaneous, not atomic) Duration is the correct term for syscalls. |
|
A lot of syscalls should be considered atomic with regards to resources. open() has at least two options this applies to. What kind of atomic do you mean?