Re: sleep in microsecond or nanosecond

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:03:31AM -0700, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> The current technique is to use a blocking mach_msg which will never
> complete, and with a timeout. The reason that nanosleep and usleep
> don't work is because 10ms is the granularity of the Mach clock.

Yeah, we figured that out...

> Changing the interface here isn't the issue so much as changing the
> implementation.

You mean changing the way message timeouts are handled in general? Or
special-casing the specific situation?...

I think improving the timeout granularity in general would be rather
complicated, and make little sense... I can't say anything about
special-casing -- don't know the details of this mechanism.

-antrik-