On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:16 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > >From the architecture perspective there are two low level clock hooks to
> > implement one is sched_clock() , and at least one clocksource structure.
> > Both do essentially the same thing. With timekeepings clocksource
> > structure actually being easier to implement cause the math is built in.
>
> I think you are mistaken here; the two are similar but not identical.
>
> I see sched_clock() as fast first, accurate second. Whereas the
> clocksource thing is accurate first, fast second.
This is true .. However, if there is a speed different it's small.
In the past I've replace sched_clock() with a clocksource, and there was
no noticeable speed different .. Just recently I replaced x86's
sched_clock() math with the clocksource math with no noticable
difference .. At least not from my benchmarks ..
> There is room for both of them.
There is room, but we don't need sched_clock() .. Certainly we shouldn't
force architectures to implement sched_clock() by calling it a "bug" if
it's lowres.
Daniel
-
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]
