From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <ee9e417a0503251336135b4a80@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:36:18 -0500
From: Russ Cox <russcox@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] tsleep / timer questions
In-Reply-To: <20050325202349.GD93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <26029ec71211f29300ddd8b5225f1e38@coraid.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.58.0503240853330.17754@enigma.lanl.gov>
	<Pine.LNX.4.60.0503241539520.12105@athena>
	<20050325183606.GA93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
	<ee9e417a0503251057779bdb8f@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050325200401.GB93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
	<ee9e417a05032512122f63e7bd@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050325202349.GD93332@smp500.sitetronics.com>
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2c05b734-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> Another (final, less important) question: what is the general
> resolution of tsleep versus addclock0link going to be?

Ultimately tsleep and addclock0link events are both
triggered by the clock interrupt handler, so the precision
is the same.  Tsleep inside a kproc is heavier weight,
but if you need lots of context then the kproc can help
out.  It sounds like in your case addclock0link is the way
to go.  Whichever makes your code simpler.

Russ