2 ms·
Thanks for the correction. I was just talking about the de facto behavior I have seen on Linux and BSD for very short sleep intervals (way shorter than 1 second
by mustpax 16y ago
Thanks for the correction. I was just talking about the de facto behavior I have seen on Linux and BSD for very short sleep intervals (way shorter than 1 second), not necessarily about the behavior as specified by the system call. I should have been clearer.
- tptacek 16y agoI really don't think you've ever seen BSD return in milliseconds after a 1-second sleep. Respectfully, I think you're pretty much just wrong.
- Dylan16807 16y agoRead it again. He's talking about near-zero sleep calls, not one second sleep calls.
- tptacek 16y agoPOSIX sleep() doesn't take subsecond intervals. Maybe he's talking about usleep()?
- mustpax 16y agoWell, that is not what I meant at all, I meant that I've seen BSD return in say 2 microseconds after calling usleep(1). But that's usleep not sleep, which is the inaccuracy I was admitting to in the first place.
- tptacek 16y agoOk, but (a) this article is talking about literally POSIX sleep(3), and (b) there is a ton of confusion on this thread about whether sleep is ms-denominated or seconds-denominated. Sorry to pile on you, though.