I guess I can't really see the use case here. If you want to sleep, it's usually because you're waiting for something: file descriptor, semaphore/mutex, or a certain amount of time to pass. If none of these conditions apply, can't you just continue to run and let the scheduler do its work? (maybe with an appropriate nice setting if you are doing "less important" work).

The scheduler itself uses fixed time interrupts for its basic functions, so "sleep(fixed_time_interval)" is what you will get in the end anyway on a preemptive system.

Calling sleep(1) instead of thread yield is faster - see the twitter thread for a proof.

Still worse: it's a confusing code, and it's also confusing that it's faster.

Not in every cases, but both are certainly suboptimal compared to a diretected wake up.