StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

POPython time.sleep vs busy wait accuracy
text
Body
copied!<p>I was playing around with the time.sleep function from python's standard library and found it inadequate for sub-ms delays. From testing I found it to actually wait 1.1-1.2 ms for a 1ms wait. Implementing a busy wait got the accuracy to within 1%. I used:</p> <pre><code>def busy_wait(dt): current_time = time.time() while (time.time() < current_time+dt): pass </code></pre> <p>and could get down to 0.0001 seconds before breaking 1% accuracy.</p> <p>The main questions I have are:</p> <ul> <li>Why is the sleep function so inaccurate (possibly a C issue)? Will getting a better CPU with a higher clock speed change this?</li> <li>Why would anyone use sleep? The only advantage I see, power conservation, is limited to embedded systems, no?</li> <li>Would it be viable to compensate for sleep's inaccuracy with calibration? Like so:</li> </ul> <pre> def sleep(dt): sleep(calibration_function(dt)) </pre> <p>As an aside, I read that sleep doesn't even function well with long wait times: <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1941177/upper-limit-in-python-time-sleep">Upper limit in Python time.sleep()?</a> I also read somewhere on SO of making a loop of shorter time intervals to increase precision, but that is useless when I want to delay 0.01 sec. <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/a/1212070/2534876">Karl Voigtland</a> mentions using ctypes' nanosleep, but I feel this is overkill and that time.sleep should do it's intended behavior.</p> <p>time.sleep is a broken python feature? Or does nobody care about accurate time measurement enough?</p>

Querying!

Guidance

An individual column

Larger individual text columns get their own page to allow for proper reading.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload