Re: New nanosecond stat patch for 2.5.44

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Followup to:  <20021030221724.GA25231@bjl1.asuk.net>
By author:    Jamie Lokier <lk@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> 
> That's some of the overhead.  The other overhead is reading the clock,
> which is quite high on x86 when TSC is not available.  On a Pentium
> with no reliable TSC, I think that the time for a read() system call
> is comparable to the time to read the clock.
> 

Typically the way you deal with not having a usably cheap
nanosecond-resolution clock is that you use the best available clock
(say if HZ=1000 you'll increment by 1000000 each timer tick), and then
simply use an atomic counter for the smaller divisions.  This makes
the relation "is A newer than B" correct, while avoiding the overhead
of producing exact timestamps below the available resolution.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt	<amsp@zytor.com>