From: Lee Revell <rlrevell@joe-job.com>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] new timeofday core subsystem for -mm (v.B3)
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 19:44:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1119311096.17701.3.camel@mindpipe> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1119304422.9947.90.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Mon, 2005-06-20 at 14:53 -0700, john stultz wrote:
> Yea, honestly I doubt gettimefoday performance will ever be as good as
> rdtsc. I mean, that's a single instruction vs syscall overhead +
> hardware clock reading + frequency conversion + ntp adjustment. Its
> just not a fair comparison.
Of course not, the patch would have to be magic for that to happen.
But some user space apps are now *required* to use rdtsc for timing due
to the massive performance difference. If we only took a 5x or 10x
performance hit vs rdtsc, rather than the current 50x, it might be
enough that user space apps won't have to do this.
Lee
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-21 0:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-18 2:56 [PATCH 1/6] new timeofday core subsystem for -mm (v.B3) john stultz
2005-06-18 2:58 ` [PATCH 2/6] new timeofday i386 arch specific changes, part 1 " john stultz
2005-06-18 2:59 ` [PATCH 3/6] new timeofday i386 arch specific changes, part 2 " john stultz
2005-06-18 3:01 ` [PATCH 4/6] new timeofday i386 arch specific changes, part 3 " john stultz
2005-06-18 3:02 ` [PATCH 5/6] new timeofday i386 arch specific changes, part 4 " john stultz
2005-06-18 3:04 ` [PATCH 6/6] new timeofday i386 specific timesources " john stultz
2005-06-18 12:02 ` [PATCH 1/6] new timeofday core subsystem " Roman Zippel
2005-06-20 7:01 ` Ulrich Windl
2005-06-20 10:22 ` Roman Zippel
2005-06-20 10:31 ` Ulrich Windl
2005-06-20 10:54 ` Roman Zippel
2005-06-20 11:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2005-06-20 17:09 ` john stultz
2005-06-20 18:10 ` Lee Revell
2005-06-20 21:53 ` john stultz
2005-06-20 23:44 ` Lee Revell [this message]
2005-06-21 14:55 ` Chris Friesen
2005-06-21 17:20 ` john stultz
2005-06-21 6:26 ` Ulrich Windl
2005-06-20 22:05 ` Roman Zippel
2005-06-20 23:40 ` Lee Revell
2005-06-20 23:55 ` john stultz
2005-06-21 15:08 ` Roman Zippel
2005-06-22 0:57 ` john stultz
2005-06-22 2:39 ` john stultz
2005-06-22 19:45 ` Roman Zippel
2005-06-23 0:29 ` john stultz
2005-06-23 21:59 ` Roman Zippel
2005-06-24 0:33 ` john stultz
2005-06-24 10:58 ` Roman Zippel
2005-06-21 6:42 ` Ulrich Windl
2005-06-21 15:13 ` Roman Zippel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1119311096.17701.3.camel@mindpipe \
--to=rlrevell@joe-job.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de \
--cc=zippel@linux-m68k.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.