Repository navigation
Document timer lifecycle performance compared with Tokio. - #19
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add a Socketry-versus-Tokio timer lifecycle comparison table to the timer crate readme, covering 0%, 10%, 50%, 90% and 100% cancellation after registration.
The table uses the existing cancellation sweep’s median run results and reports percentage reductions in elapsed time. Explain the included lifecycle operations, excluded setup, sample aggregation and dense single-thread expiry scope, with links to the detailed methodology, reproduction command and raw CSV. Also clarify which benchmark fixtures measure payload queues rather than sleep futures.
Follow-up to #18.