<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Timers on Nalar</title>
    <link>https://nalar.dev/tags/timers/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Timers on Nalar</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://nalar.dev/tags/timers/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Integrate Timers into Linux Event Loops with timerfd</title>
      <link>https://nalar.dev/integrate-timers-into-linux-event-loops-with-timerfd/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Sep 2026 00:00:00 +0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://nalar.dev/integrate-timers-into-linux-event-loops-with-timerfd/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Event loops work best when unrelated kinds of work have one common waiting mechanism. Sockets become readable. Pipes become writable. A child-process descriptor or signal descriptor can become ready. Timers are often the awkward exception.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;A program can call &lt;code&gt;sleep()&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;nanosleep()&lt;/code&gt;, but that blocks the thread instead of letting it wait for I/O. It can pass a timeout to &lt;code&gt;poll()&lt;/code&gt; or &lt;code&gt;epoll_wait()&lt;/code&gt;, but one timeout becomes difficult to manage when the program has several independent deadlines. Traditional POSIX timers can deliver signals, which introduces a second asynchronous control path.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
