From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Dec 9 17:11:25 1996 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id RAA21483 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:11:25 -0800 (PST) Received: from Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU (Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU [171.64.79.10]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id RAA21478 for ; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:11:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU (Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU [171.64.79.91]) by Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU (8.7.4/8.6.9) with SMTP id RAA04353; Mon, 9 Dec 1996 17:09:58 -0800 Message-Id: <199612100109.RAA04353@Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU> X-Authentication-Warning: Pescadero.DSG.Stanford.EDU: Host Cup.DSG.Stanford.EDU [171.64.79.91] didn't use HELO protocol To: Jason Thorpe Cc: John Birrell Cc: terry@lambert.org, hackers@freebsd.org, tech-kern@netbsd.org Subject: Re: poll(2) Date: Mon, 09 Dec 1996 17:09:57 -0800 From: Jonathan Stone Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk >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.