Hi, On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote: > So I think it would be entirely appropriate to > > - do something that *approximates* microseconds. > > Using microseconds instead of nanoseconds would likely allow us to do > 32-bit arithmetic in more areas, without any real overflow. The basic problem is that one needs a number of bits (at least 16) for normalization, which limits the time range one can work with. This means that 32 bit leaves only room for 1 millisecond resolution, the remainder could maybe saved and reused later. So AFAICT using micro- or nanosecond resolution doesn't make much computational difference. bye, Roman - 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/
- References:
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>
- x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Andrea Arcangeli <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: x86 status was Re: -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- From: Mike Galbraith <[email protected]>
- CFS review
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: CFS review
- From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
- Re: CFS review
- From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: CFS review
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- -mm merge plans for 2.6.23
- Prev by Date: Re: REGRESSION: serial_cs broken by 8250 changes
- Next by Date: Re: gcc fixed size char array initialization bug - known?
- Previous by thread: Re: CFS review
- Next by thread: Re: CFS review
- Index(es):