From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:10:19 GMT."
	<CAOw7k5iaYTkyXL4WrVyeVEU4daEWKYxxN_AQhd0nRFsexctJJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e18b59836e3c4fc17ff01b960f064732@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5hWjT47JCkqAEoqXNa7tkEhkMe-72yJt4HjSr1KfTMuXA@mail.gmail.com>
	<0263c93c2d57900638e664f1b538a76d@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<CAOw7k5gk+KkeK_B1P-RtXJh+tPeKFnbyCTUb296-OY93-_-kKg@mail.gmail.com>
	<0cf8de222eb5fa81721e8bcf4dd4e875@brasstown.quanstro.net>
	<20121128185827.863CFB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<CAOw7k5iaYTkyXL4WrVyeVEU4daEWKYxxN_AQhd0nRFsexctJJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:38:40 -0800
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20121128193840.29418B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] sleep(2) historical question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ec139dbe-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 19:10:19 GMT Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>  wrote:
> No, I don't think it is, in this case. I really don't see many
> applications deeply yearning for tiny sleeps and naplets.
>
> On 28 November 2012 18:58, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:
> > Chicken and egg.

I wrote a packet traffic/protocol simulator where a 250Hz
clock (seemed to be the default on Linux) was not fast enough.
On FreeBSD I could just up the clock to 10Khz.  RTT
computation as Erik pointed out.  If you want to minimize
latency in usermode drivers and deal with simple(r) hardware.

Lots of uses.