From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <e18b59836e3c4fc17ff01b960f064732@brasstown.quanstro.net>
References: <e18b59836e3c4fc17ff01b960f064732@brasstown.quanstro.net>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 07:37:20 +0000
Message-ID: <CAOw7k5hWjT47JCkqAEoqXNa7tkEhkMe-72yJt4HjSr1KfTMuXA@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: e8e4e166-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

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.
>
> - erik
>