[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111017213143.GA8502@elte.hu>
Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:31:43 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Simon Kirby <sim@...tway.ca>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Linux 3.1-rc9
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> If we used a scalar 64-bit form for all kernel internal time
> representations:
>
> s64 nsecs;
>
> then conversions back to timespec/timeval would involve dividing
> this 64-bit value with 1000000000 or 1000000.
>
> Is there no faster approximation for those than bit by bit?
>
> In particular we could try something like:
>
> (high*2^32 + low)/1e9 ~== ( high * (2^64/1e9) ) / 2^32
>
> ... which reduces it all to a 64-bit multiplication (or two 32-bit
> multiplications) with a known constant, at the cost of 1 nsec
> imprecision of the result - but that's an OK approximation in my
> opinion.
Hm, no, the numeric error would be in the *seconds* result, and would
be 0-3 seconds - which is obviously not acceptable.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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