Re: [9fans] sleep(2) historical question

[Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>]

On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 20:58:03 GMT Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>  wrote:
> RTT computation isn't the problem. you're going to use a multicore
> numa 64-bit processor to clock edges into a simple device register at
> microsecond resolution without any attempt at timeliness? seriously?

Not everyone is running plan9 on multicore numa machines!  I
want to run it specifically on low end machines, *for*
hardware control among other things. Other OS choices here are
not as palatable.

By your argument why even 100Hz? Why not have a 1sec clock?

If a finer resolution timers were provided, may be that'd be
an incentive to fix any plan9 issues with scheduling or
accuracy.  And I think fixing such issues will be *easier* in
plan9 than in Linux or BSD.

And in any case why stick to an artificial choice made decades
ago when it gets in the way of at lease some applications?
Seems best to get rid of the fixed 100Hz clock and allow as
fine a timer resolution (& accuracy) as a particular CPU +
kernel combination can do.