On Wednesday 03 May 2006 11:11, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 09:40 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 May 2006 09:09, Mike Galbraith wrote:
> >
> > > Given that most people are going to end up using the pm_timer anyway, I
> > > don't see the point of even having a sched_clock(). If it's jiffy
> > > resolution, it's useless. If it's wildly inaccurate (as it is in the
> > > SMP case, monotonicity issues aside) it's more than useless.
> >
> > For sched_clock TSC is always used and it's fine - sched_clock
> > doesn't require the guarantees that make TSC often useless otherwise
>
> Regrettable, that's not true.
Hmm, maybe I'm thinking too much x86-64. At least on x86-64 it's true.
I don't see a big reason to not do this on i386 either, except
on systems that truly don't have a TSC (386/486)
Ok i suppose if you don't want cruft you can always go to 64bit @)
-Andi
-
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]
