[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20111213032406.GA9604@netboy.at.omicron.at>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:24:07 +0100
From: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Kumar Sundararajan <kumar@...com>,
john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>,
Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC 0/2] ABI for clock_gettime_ns
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 05:26:36PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On x86-64, clock_gettime is so fast that the overhead converting to and
> from nanoseconds is non-negligible. clock_gettime_ns is a different
> interface that is potentially faster. If people like the ABI, I'll
> implement an optimized version.
I am not so interested in performance optimizations, but do I think
offering time in nanoseconds is attractive from an application point
of view. The timespec is impractical for everyone.
While you are at it with new syscalls, why not make a clean break from
POSIX and fix the uglies?
- New name, to distance ourselves from POSIX (clock_ns_get?)
- Family of calls, with set/get
- Sub nanosecond field
- TAI time base (or according to parameter?)
Thanks,
Richard
--
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