[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <875y04kroz.ffs@tglx>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2024 12:09:00 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Sagi Maimon <maimon.sagi@...il.com>, richardcochran@...il.com,
luto@...nel.org, datglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, arnd@...db.de,
geert@...ux-m68k.org, peterz@...radead.org, hannes@...xchg.org,
sohil.mehta@...el.com, rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com, nphamcs@...il.com,
palmer@...ive.com, maimon.sagi@...il.com, keescook@...omium.org,
legion@...nel.org, mark.rutland@....com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5] posix-timers: add multi_clock_gettime system call
On Tue, Jan 02 2024 at 11:18, Sagi Maimon wrote:
> Some user space applications need to read some clocks.
> Each read requires moving from user space to kernel space.
> The syscall overhead causes unpredictable delay between N clocks reads
> Removing this delay causes better synchronization between N clocks.
As I explained to you before: This is wishful thinking.
There is absolutely no guarantee that the syscall will yield better
results. It might on average, but that's a useless measure.
You also still fail to explain what this is going to solve and how it's
used.
> Some user space applications need to read some clocks.
Is just not an explanation at all.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists