[lkml]   [2003]   [Feb]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.59_getcycles_A0
On Fri, 2003-02-07 at 17:52, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > However this doesn't work on systems w/o a synced TSC, so by simply
> Why not? This shouldn't be performance critical and you can make
> it monotonous with an additional variable + lock if backwards jumps
> should be a problem.

That sounds horrible! The extra locking and variable reading is going to
kill most of the performance concerns you have about reading an
alternate time source.

I'm not sure I understand your resistance to using an alternate clock
for get_cycles(). Could you better explain your problem with it?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:33    [W:0.040 / U:26.496 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site