10ms, the current limit to sleep resolution from sources, is a massive chunk of time. even 100µs is a rather large chunk of time these days. 10 millisecond is - 12.5 MB on a 10gbe network (1.25mb on gbe) or 1000 rtt (100rtt) - 30 million instructions (per core), assuming only scalar.
On Wed Nov 28 14:11:58 EST 2012, [email protected] wrote: > No, I don't think it is, in this case. I really don't see many > applications deeply yearning for tiny sleeps and naplets. even usb/kb uses sleep(5), which isn't going to work as intended. that's getting pretty close to the limit. ping is an example of a little program that really could use better timing. ping -i sets the interval between frames using sleep. a minimum interval of 1000 rtt really limits the utility. i think you're arguing for making anything about that granularity *impossible*. - erik
