Author neologix
Recipients eric.snow, georg.brandl, gvanrossum, neologix, pitrou, python-dev, vstinner
Date 2014-02-02.22:03:52
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <CAH_1eM2wPusF3VdjgmRaDgL5mG8Aba_t26mGW3iLWQh9q8Cz-g@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to <1391378328.31.0.0360623928125.issue20311@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
Content
> I don't think so. Please read again the issue #20452, for example this
message:
>
> http://bugs.python.org/issue20452#msg209772

"""
Ok, it looks better: waiting 99.9 ms took 99.6 ms and 99.9 ms, and waiting
9.9 ms took 9.7 ms. So as I said, the granularity (of 1 ms) is still needed
in asyncio (dt < timeout is sometimes False, but dt+granulary >= timeout is
always True).
"""

Sorry, I still fail to see how waking up after 99.6ms instead of 99.9ms is
an issue: I've asked you several times to provide an actual example of a
problem, and you still haven't.

Once again: a slight early wakeup isn't an issue, you'll just call
epoll()/select() once again.
All even loops work this way, and noone ever complained.
History
Date User Action Args
2014-02-02 22:03:52neologixsetrecipients: + neologix, gvanrossum, georg.brandl, pitrou, vstinner, python-dev, eric.snow
2014-02-02 22:03:52neologixlinkissue20311 messages
2014-02-02 22:03:52neologixcreate