On Tue, 17 May 2005 19:25:41 EDT, Lee Revell said:

> How do you expect application developers to handle not being able to
> count on the resolution of nanosleep()?  Currently they can at least
> assume 10ms on 2.4, 1ms on 2.6.  Seems to me that if you are no longer
> guaranteed to be able to sleep 5ms on 2.6, you would just have to
> busywait.  Is it me, or does that way lie madness?

If you're running tickless, wouldn't a 'sleep 5ms' cause a timer event to be
queued, and we wake up (approx) 5ms later?