On 15.06.2005 [08:30:20 +0200], Ulrich Windl wrote:
> On 14 Jun 2005 at 11:11, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Would it be beneficial to encapsulate the timer_list structure? That way
> > if the units change underneath and we eventually move to timer_fsecs
> > (for femtoseconds), we don't need to change all the callers of
> > set_timer_nsecs() again?
> [...]
>
> I don't think that we'll see a global clock with reliable femtosecond
> resolution (not to talk about accuracy) in the foreseeable computer
> generations. Even plain gigahertz RAM is quite some time away. So how
> would you distribute such high resolution time across CPUs? As long as
> a syscall takes significantly longer than 1ns, or has a jitter of more
> than 1ns, a higher resolution clock would be just a source of
> additional noise bits.
Thank you for your feedback, Ulrich. You are probably right that such a
hardware timesource probably is not going to be common any time soon. My
thoughts for encapsulation were just a possibility, and certainly not a
requirement for my patch.
I did not consider the problems of distributing that value, either. So,
I guess, I can leave encapsulation out of the current efforts :)
Thanks,
Nish
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
