From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <46481E9E-F3CD-4F75-8B2A-405829DFD5D2@pobox.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>
	<46481E9E-F3CD-4F75-8B2A-405829DFD5D2@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 21:12:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOw7k5hRmDTUvRqYbZisgJrs8WADKHgpkjZssr3S6Ws=k_+zCw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Charles Forsyth <charles.forsyth@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [9fans] sleep(2) historical question
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ec735c5e-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

If you look at the manual pages for nanosleep, clock_nanosleep and
others on Linux you'll see that they have many bits
of advice, BUGS notes, and other statements to the effect that the
standard things do not work well, and most need some
sort of real-time support to do anything sensible. An earlier variant
did a busy wait when needed (which is unsurprising,
but assumes processor wiring, and no scheduling away from the process).

On 28 November 2012 19:27, David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> wrote:
> Is POSIX' nanosleep() or old-POSIX/BSD/XOpen's usleep() out of the question?