On Wed, 18 Jul 2007, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> Linus, Thomas, what do you think, should we keep the time.c change?
No, not if it's off by the second field. That 30% CPU usage indicates that
there's some nasty bug there somewhere, and that's just not worth it.
If time() cannot get the second field right, it's bogus. I'm ok with us
not *guaranteeing* monotonicity of the second field when you compare
gettimeofday() with time(), but the 30% thing implies that it's much worse
than that, and that "time()" will likely report the previous second (when
compared to hrtimers) roughly a quarter of the time.
And that isn't acceptable.
So either it should be fixed, or reverted.
Linus
-
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]
