From: George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>
To: "linux-os (Dick Johnson)" <linux-os@analogic.com>
Cc: evan@coolrunningconcepts.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Timer idea
Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:34:26 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <437A3842.6000403@mvista.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0511151401400.6145@chaos.analogic.com>
linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 evan@coolrunningconcepts.com wrote:
>
>
>>I was thinking about benchmarking, profiling, and various other applications
>>that might need frequent access to the current time. Polling timers or
>>frequent timer signal delivery both seem like there would be a lot of
>>overhead.
>>I was thinking it would be nice if you could just read the time information
>>without making an OS call.
>>
>>I figure the kernel keeps accurate records of current time information and the
>>values of various timers. I then had the idea that one could have a /dev or
>>maybe a /proc entry that would allow you to mmap() the kernel records (read
>>only) and then you could read this information right from the kernel without
>>any overhead.
>
>
> Great invention, read some timer without any overhead! I guess if
> you can figure it out you are up for a Nobel Prize, certainly a new
> breakthrough.
>
> FYI, even if you put some kernel spinning count in shared-memory,
> it would have overhead. In fact, users might even be able DOS the
> machine by spinning on that count. Putting time in /proc or /dev
> also has great overhead. Have you ever looked at how these
> file-systems work?
>
> On ix86 machines, basic time comes from chip(s), read from ports.
> That's just another tiny little problem.
Its not just shared memory, but a protected very low overhead extension of the kernel code space
into the user map. Mostly what is saved is the system call overhead.
>
> The time-keeping in Linux certainly has a few problems and they
> don't seem to be getting resolved, just exchanging one set of
> problems for another as the timer code has been rewritten many
> times. It would helpful if somebody did take a fresh new look
> at timekeeping, but reading something from shared memory just
> isn't relevant.
Possibly you would like to review what John is doing and make relevent comments.
--
George Anzinger george@mvista.com
HRT (High-res-timers): http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-11-15 19:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-11-15 17:24 Timer idea evan
2005-11-15 18:20 ` Kenichi Okuyama
2005-11-15 18:58 ` George Anzinger
2005-11-15 19:12 ` john stultz
2005-11-15 19:13 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
2005-11-15 19:34 ` George Anzinger [this message]
2005-11-15 20:20 ` Christopher Friesen
2005-11-15 21:11 ` linux-os (Dick Johnson)
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=437A3842.6000403@mvista.com \
--to=george@mvista.com \
--cc=evan@coolrunningconcepts.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-os@analogic.com \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox