On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > The alternative is the degrade the quality of the standard timescales: > clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME), time(2) and gettimeofday(). > > The question there is: are we willing to live with the fallout ? Another important question is whether using these alternative time access methods in user space improves the performance of any of the applications we care about. Hence providing a patch that someone can try -- while the microbenchmarks seem to show improved performance, will the applications? I suspect it will in some important cases, but there's only one way to find out. It strikes me that replacing time(3) with something that retrieves CLOCK_SECOND shouldn't harm time(3) semantics. Likewise, keeping CLOCK_REALTIME as is is likely OK -- if an application requests it using clock_gettime(), then it is presumably looking for high accuracy. It's gettimeofday() that's the troubling one -- it's widely used to query the time in applications, and its API suggests microsecond resolution. Robert N M WatsonReceived on Fri Oct 28 2005 - 22:02:01 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:46 UTC