Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 17:09:57 -0800 From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU> To: Jason Thorpe <thorpej@nas.nasa.gov> Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, tech-kern@netbsd.org Subject: Re: poll(2) Message-ID: <199612100109.RAA04353@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Just wanted to get tech-kern@netbsd.org on this thread, too :-) > >"Discuss." :-) Uh, well, then.... AFAIK, there aren't yet any NetBSD ports with significantly better than millisecond time-of-day-clock (and thus forced process- scheduling) resolution. So milliseconds are currently as good as you'll get. You can add a syscall specifying a nanosecond interval, but anyone thinking they're going to get _nano_second-level wakeups is, currently, deluding themselves. (I still get ~4usec syscall times on a 200MHz P6.) Clearly we should add a nano-second resolution poll interface. Once we do so, regardless of the actualy in-kernel resolution, poll(2) and upoll(3) become poll(3) and upoll(3). Re naming, npoll() is more consistent with the sleep()/usleep() usage. Does POSIX have anything to say here? If we did this _now_ we could, perhaps, reuse the existing syscall number, since AFAIK poll(2) has never been in an official NetBSD release.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199612100109.RAA04353>