[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AE9AFAE.5020306@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:07:26 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>
CC: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
kurt.hackel@...cle.com, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com>, zach.brown@...cle.com,
chris.mason@...cle.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation
On 10/29/2009 04:46 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> No, the apps I'm familiar with (a DB and a JVM) need a timestamp
> not a monotonic counter. The timestamps must be relatively
> accurate (e.g. we've been talking about gettimeofday generically,
> but these apps would use clock_gettime for nsec resolution),
> monotonically increasing, and work properly across a VM
> migration. The timestamps are taken up to a 100K/sec or
> more so the apps need to ensure they are using the fastest
> mechanism available that meets those requirements.
>
Out of interest, do you know (and can you relate) why those apps need
100k/sec monotonically increasing timestamps?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists