On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 11:47:16 -0700
Michael Hunter <Michael.Hunter at Sun.COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:20:06 -0400
[...]
> > This leads to the question of how we want our daemon to behave. Do we
> > care that things happen in the same microsecond or nanosecond that it
> > was meant to happen? If we say the alarm should go off 1.1 second, is
> > the .1 really important? What if the alarm is delayed by 0.3 seconds?
> > Should we move to ualarm(3C) instead of the current alarm(2)? Whichever
> > alarm we use,
>
> More generally do we care that if we want the alarm to be in N seconds
> that really means the alarm will trigger sometime within N-1 and N+2 (I
> think that is right although given how we deal with short timers it
> might really be tighter on the short side?) seconds. That is kinda
> fat. But I suspect we don't care. I just want it understood and
> documented.
Something I hadn't thought about but think should be documented that is
in this same vein is that this list is probably out of order. As we
add events to a "second" they end up going in LIFO and so the lasts one
scheduled into that bucket are the first ones to be triggered. I think.
Michael
