[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] ktimers subsystem
On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 16:04 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Sep 2005, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Hmm. I don't understand the argument line completely.
> >
> > 1. The kernel has to provide ugly mechanisms because a lot of
> > applications implementations are doing the Wrong Thing ?
> Lets skip the "wrong thing"... Or are you saying that glibc and all the
> apps are all wrong?
> 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 ?

> > > Many platforms can execute gettimeofday
> > > without having to enter the kernel.
> >
> > Which ones ? How is this achieved with respect to all the time adjust,
> > correction... code ?
> IA64 f.e. has a special instruction that allows access to kernel user
> space without having to do a context switch.

Ok, was not aware of that and John kindly clarified this already.


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: 2005-09-20 01:14    [W:0.134 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site