Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.59_getcycles_A0 | From | john stultz <> | Date | 07 Feb 2003 18:14:43 -0800 |
| |
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?
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/
| |