From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:57:14 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <0263c93c2d57900638e664f1b538a76d@brasstown.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAOw7k5hWjT47JCkqAEoqXNa7tkEhkMe-72yJt4HjSr1KfTMuXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e18b59836e3c4fc17ff01b960f064732@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5hWjT47JCkqAEoqXNa7tkEhkMe-72yJt4HjSr1KfTMuXA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] sleep(2) historical question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: eab63f58-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed Nov 28 02:38:39 EST 2012, charles.forsyth@gmail.com wrote:
> the relative unimportance of sleep?
>
> On 27 November 2012 23:19, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> > why is sleep(2) limited in resolution to HZ in the
> > portable code?  the underlying mechanism is often
> > much finer grained than HZ, and if there is a limit,
> > one would think that it's related to the hardware
> > mechanism, not the HZ clock.  i'm clearly missing
> > something.

that's not helpful.

- erik