From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC 10/10] example of simple continuous gettimeofday
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:01:12 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20051222090112.GA6377@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1135219395.5873.96.camel@leatherman>
* john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> > - I still don't like the idea of a generic gettimeofday() as it prevents
> > more optimized versions, e.g. on the one end with a 1MHz clock you only
> > have usec resolution anyway and this allows to keep almost everything
> > within 32bits. On the other end 64bit archs can avoid the "if (nsec >
> > NSEC_PER_SEC)" by doing something like ppc64 does, but requires a
> > different scaling of the values (to sec instead of nsec).
>
> Fair enough. I agree arches should be able to have their own arch
> specific implementations. If you really have to micro-optimize
> everything, just don't enable CONFIG_GENERIC_TIME and have your own
> timekeeping subsystem!
>
> But at the same time, I don't like the idea of needlessly having 26
> different versions of gettimeofday that do exactly the same thing
> modulo a few bugs. :)
I like the first 9 patches, but regarding 10/10 i very much agree with
John: it moves us to per-arch gettimeofday again, which is a big step
backwards and reverts some of the biggest advantage of John's
clocksource patchset!
Also, lets face it: with the union ktime_t type most of the '64-bit is
slow on 32-bit' issues are much less of a problem. If some 32-bit arch
wants to pull off its own timekeeping system, it can do so - but
otherwise we want to move towards generic, unified (as far as it makes
sense) and generally 64-bit-optimized subsystems. In 1995 i'd have
agreed with Roman, but not in 2005.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-12-22 9:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-12-21 23:30 [PATCH/RFC 10/10] example of simple continuous gettimeofday Roman Zippel
2005-12-22 2:43 ` john stultz
2005-12-22 9:01 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2005-12-25 20:54 ` Roman Zippel
2006-01-20 4:01 ` john stultz
2005-12-22 10:29 ` Thomas Gleixner
2005-12-25 16:50 ` Roman Zippel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20051222090112.GA6377@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).