> Creating ‘N’ threads and adding them all to a sorted wake list will be between O(N log N) and O(N^2), depending on the OS and/or language runtime.
This is not a fundamental limitation of scheduling systems, especially if you take into account the possibility of special hardware allowing for constant-time-with-respect-to-number-of-threads scheduling. For example, it is trivial, though economically infeasible for any practical purpose, to construct a scheduler that performs scheduling by bouncing infopackets via laser beams off of a gargantuan set of mirrors of varying distances back onto a detector connected to the computer, relying on the speed of light to perform a delay of the specified duration. This shows that sleep sort does not inherently rely on the hidden algorithmic complexity of whatever thread scheduling approach is used, since that can be optimized to O(1) in theory, if not in practice.
This is not a fundamental limitation of scheduling systems, especially if you take into account the possibility of special hardware allowing for constant-time-with-respect-to-number-of-threads scheduling. For example, it is trivial, though economically infeasible for any practical purpose, to construct a scheduler that performs scheduling by bouncing infopackets via laser beams off of a gargantuan set of mirrors of varying distances back onto a detector connected to the computer, relying on the speed of light to perform a delay of the specified duration. This shows that sleep sort does not inherently rely on the hidden algorithmic complexity of whatever thread scheduling approach is used, since that can be optimized to O(1) in theory, if not in practice.