Message210029
> 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. |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-02-02 22:03:52 | neologix | set | recipients:
+ neologix, gvanrossum, georg.brandl, pitrou, vstinner, python-dev, eric.snow |
2014-02-02 22:03:52 | neologix | link | issue20311 messages |
2014-02-02 22:03:52 | neologix | create | |
|