Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: gettimeofday nanoseconds patch (makes it possible for the posix-timer functions to return higher accuracy) | From | john stultz <> | Date | Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:48:06 -0700 |
| |
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 17:08, Christoph Lameter wrote: > On Wed, 14 Jul 2004, john stultz wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 13:28, Christoph Lameter wrote: > > > > None the less, I do understand the desire for the change (and am working > > > > to address it in 2.7), so could you at least use a better name then > > > > gettimeofday()? Maybe get_ns_time() or something? Its just too similar > > > > to do_gettimeofday and the syscall gettimeofday(). > > > > > > Right. I had it named getnstimeofday before but the feeling was that the > > > patch should not introduce a new name. Any approach that would allow > > > progress on the issue would be fine with me. > > > > Fair enough. getnstimeofday() sounds good enough for me. > > Ok. A modified patch is following.
I guess it looks good enough for me. I'd say send it to Andrew when you're ready.
George, do you have any additional comments?
Although you still have the issue w/ NTP adjustments being ignored, but last time I looked at the time_interpolator code, it seemed it was being ignored there too, so at least your not doing worse then the ia64 do_gettimeofday(). [If I'm doing the time_interpolator code a great injustice with the above, someone please correct me]
> > > > Really, I feel the cleaner method is to fix do_gettimeofday() so it > > > > returns a timespec and then convert it to a timeval in > > > > sys_gettimeofday(). However this would add overhead to the syscall, so I > > > > doubt folks would go for it. > > > > > > do_gettimeofday is used all over the linux kernel for a variety of > > > purposes and lots of code depends on the presence of a timeval struct. > > > > Indeed, it would be a decent amount of work to clean that up as well. > > The cleanup can be done gradually after this patch is in. I volunteer > to work on this (hoping that my employer may support that ;-) ).
I'll try to remember to cc you on the 2.7 code when I get the first pass ready (re-implementing the NTP mechanism is the last blocker). I'm sure to appreciate additional feedback from non i386 arch specific views.
thanks -john
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |