On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 16:04 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I don't understand the argument line completely.
> >
> > 1. The kernel has to provide ugly mechanisms because a lot of
> > applications implementations are doing the Wrong Thing ?
>
> Lets skip the "wrong thing"... Or are you saying that glibc and all the
> apps are all wrong?
>
> Applications call gettimeofday for a variety of reasons. One is because it
> is widely available over different platformsn and application want to
> schedule things, need timestamps etc etc.
Accepted. But I still doubt that the number of calls to gettimeofday is
in anyway justified. The question I'm asking if it is really worth a
long and epic discussion about a single add instruction ?
> > > Many platforms can execute gettimeofday
> > > without having to enter the kernel.
> >
> > Which ones ? How is this achieved with respect to all the time adjust,
> > correction... code ?
>
> IA64 f.e. has a special instruction that allows access to kernel user
> space without having to do a context switch.
Ok, was not aware of that and John kindly clarified this already.
tglx
-
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]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |