Subject: Re: poll(2)
To: Jason Thorpe <email@example.com>
From: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 12/09/1996 17:09:57
>Just wanted to get firstname.lastname@example.org on this thread, too :-)
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 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.