lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 20 Sep 2005 09:14:01 +0200
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] ktimers subsystem
* Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:

> > Applications call gettimeofday for a variety of reasons. One is because it 
> > is widely available over different platformsn and application want to 
> > schedule things, need timestamps etc etc.
> 
> Accepted. But I still doubt that the number of calls to gettimeofday 
> is in anyway justified. The question I'm asking if it is really worth 
> a long and epic discussion about a single add instruction ?

it is absolutely and emphatically not worth it.

even in a hypothetical scenario [which this patchset is _not_ analogous 
to] where a new, clean subsystem introduces significant overhead, but 
the old subsystem is unclean, we frequently go with the new one - 
because it's so much easier to speed up something that is clean, robust 
and well-designed, than something that has been cobbled together!

	Ingo
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-20 10:03    [from the cache]
©2003-2008