--- libev/ev.pod	2007/12/21 05:10:01	1.95
+++ libev/ev.pod	2007/12/22 11:49:17	1.100
@@ -117,6 +117,12 @@
 C<ev_now> function is usually faster and also often returns the timestamp
 you actually want to know.
 
+=item ev_sleep (ev_tstamp interval)
+
+Sleep for the given interval: The current thread will be blocked until
+either it is interrupted or the given time interval has passed. Basically
+this is a subsecond-resolution C<sleep ()>.
+
 =item int ev_version_major ()
 
 =item int ev_version_minor ()
@@ -319,7 +325,7 @@
 like O(total_fds) where n is the total number of fds (or the highest fd),
 epoll scales either O(1) or O(active_fds). The epoll design has a number
 of shortcomings, such as silently dropping events in some hard-to-detect
-cases and rewuiring a syscall per fd change, no fork support and bad
+cases and rewiring a syscall per fd change, no fork support and bad
 support for dup:
 
 While stopping, setting and starting an I/O watcher in the same iteration
@@ -335,20 +341,23 @@
 =item C<EVBACKEND_KQUEUE>  (value 8, most BSD clones)
 
 Kqueue deserves special mention, as at the time of this writing, it
-was broken on I<all> BSDs (usually it doesn't work with anything but
-sockets and pipes, except on Darwin, where of course it's completely
-useless. On NetBSD, it seems to work for all the FD types I tested, so it
-is used by default there). For this reason it's not being "autodetected"
+was broken on all BSDs except NetBSD (usually it doesn't work reliably
+with anything but sockets and pipes, except on Darwin, where of course
+it's completely useless). For this reason it's not being "autodetected"
 unless you explicitly specify it explicitly in the flags (i.e. using
 C<EVBACKEND_KQUEUE>) or libev was compiled on a known-to-be-good (-enough)
 system like NetBSD.
 
+You still can embed kqueue into a normal poll or select backend and use it
+only for sockets (after having made sure that sockets work with kqueue on
+the target platform). See C<ev_embed> watchers for more info.
+
 It scales in the same way as the epoll backend, but the interface to the
-kernel is more efficient (which says nothing about its actual speed,
-of course). While stopping, setting and starting an I/O watcher does
-never cause an extra syscall as with epoll, it still adds up to two event
-changes per incident, support for C<fork ()> is very bad and it drops fds
-silently in similarly hard-to-detetc cases.
+kernel is more efficient (which says nothing about its actual speed, of
+course). While stopping, setting and starting an I/O watcher does never
+cause an extra syscall as with C<EVBACKEND_EPOLL>, it still adds up to
+two event changes per incident, support for C<fork ()> is very bad and it
+drops fds silently in similarly hard-to-detect cases.
 
 =item C<EVBACKEND_DEVPOLL> (value 16, Solaris 8)
 
@@ -571,6 +580,42 @@
   ev_ref (loop);
   ev_signal_stop (loop, &exitsig);
 
+=item ev_set_io_collect_interval (loop, ev_tstamp interval)
+
+=item ev_set_timeout_collect_interval (loop, ev_tstamp interval)
+
+These advanced functions influence the time that libev will spend waiting
+for events. Both are by default C<0>, meaning that libev will try to
+invoke timer/periodic callbacks and I/O callbacks with minimum latency.
+
+Setting these to a higher value (the C<interval> I<must> be >= C<0>)
+allows libev to delay invocation of I/O and timer/periodic callbacks to
+increase efficiency of loop iterations.
+
+The background is that sometimes your program runs just fast enough to
+handle one (or very few) event(s) per loop iteration. While this makes
+the program responsive, it also wastes a lot of CPU time to poll for new
+events, especially with backends like C<select ()> which have a high
+overhead for the actual polling but can deliver many events at once.
+
+By setting a higher I<io collect interval> you allow libev to spend more
+time collecting I/O events, so you can handle more events per iteration,
+at the cost of increasing latency. Timeouts (both C<ev_periodic> and
+C<ev_timer>) will be not affected. Setting this to a non-null bvalue will
+introduce an additional C<ev_sleep ()> call into most loop iterations.
+
+Likewise, by setting a higher I<timeout collect interval> you allow libev
+to spend more time collecting timeouts, at the expense of increased
+latency (the watcher callback will be called later). C<ev_io> watchers
+will not be affected. Setting this to a non-null value will not introduce
+any overhead in libev.
+
+Many (busy) programs can usually benefit by setting the io collect
+interval to a value near C<0.1> or so, which is often enough for
+interactive servers (of course not for games), likewise for timeouts. It
+usually doesn't make much sense to set it to a lower value than C<0.01>,
+as this approsaches the timing granularity of most systems.
+
 =back
 
 
@@ -1583,11 +1628,11 @@
 priority, to ensure that they are being run before any other watchers
 after the poll. Also, C<ev_check> watchers (and C<ev_prepare> watchers,
 too) should not activate ("feed") events into libev. While libev fully
-supports this, they will be called before other C<ev_check> watchers did
-their job. As C<ev_check> watchers are often used to embed other event
-loops those other event loops might be in an unusable state until their
-C<ev_check> watcher ran (always remind yourself to coexist peacefully with
-others).
+supports this, they will be called before other C<ev_check> watchers
+did their job. As C<ev_check> watchers are often used to embed other
+(non-libev) event loops those other event loops might be in an unusable
+state until their C<ev_check> watcher ran (always remind yourself to
+coexist peacefully with others).
 
 =head3 Watcher-Specific Functions and Data Members
 
@@ -1736,7 +1781,7 @@
 This is a rather advanced watcher type that lets you embed one event loop
 into another (currently only C<ev_io> events are supported in the embedded
 loop, other types of watchers might be handled in a delayed or incorrect
-fashion and must not be used). (See portability notes, below).
+fashion and must not be used).
 
 There are primarily two reasons you would want that: work around bugs and
 prioritise I/O.
@@ -1801,22 +1846,6 @@
   else
     loop_lo = loop_hi;
 
-=head2 Portability notes
-
-Kqueue is nominally embeddable, but this is broken on all BSDs that I
-tried, in various ways. Usually the embedded event loop will simply never
-receive events, sometimes it will only trigger a few times, sometimes in a
-loop. Epoll is also nominally embeddable, but many Linux kernel versions
-will always eport the epoll fd as ready, even when no events are pending.
-
-While libev allows embedding these backends (they are contained in
-C<ev_embeddable_backends ()>), take extreme care that it will actually
-work.
-
-When in doubt, create a dynamic event loop forced to use sockets (this
-usually works) and possibly another thread and a pipe or so to report to
-your main event loop.
-
 =head3 Watcher-Specific Functions and Data Members
 
 =over 4
@@ -2299,6 +2328,11 @@
 (CLOCK_REALTIME, ...)> and will not normally affect correctness. See the
 note about libraries in the description of C<EV_USE_MONOTONIC>, though.
 
+=item EV_USE_NANOSLEEP
+
+If defined to be C<1>, libev will assume that C<nanosleep ()> is available
+and will use it for delays. Otherwise it will use C<select ()>.
+
 =item EV_USE_SELECT
 
 If undefined or defined to be C<1>, libev will compile in support for the