10 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
10 lines
1.1 KiB
Plaintext
|
A common misconception states that you can't and shouldn't yield with above MS precision bc "tehe kernels and timers are slow."
|
||
|
|
Such propagators believe that because the "kernel tick" or "timer tick" is slow, the res must therefore be bad.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
In reality, kernel sleep requests are fed into the kernels respective scheduling or similar io subsystem to yield given the target unit of time.
|
||
|
|
The frequency of a Linux kernel, for instance, only determines the software timer interrupt driving preemption. In the most basic of implementation,
|
||
|
|
such is generally true across all kernels. The problem is, timed sleeps aren't in anyway dependent on thread context preemption, and are instead mostly
|
||
|
|
dependent on a reschedule of the context itself, leading to the infamous inconsistencies in yield times. So far as PC timer resolution and thread
|
||
|
|
switching through <current year - 15> to <current year> are concerned, we are countless orders of magnitude ahead of 1000 units per second, or 1000MS.
|
||
|
|
We therefore implement SleepNs as the much required higher resolution alternative to MS, regardless of if you can actually reach your target sleep
|
||
|
|
period accurately.
|