[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [ANNOUNCE] ktimers subsystem

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005, Ingo Molnar wrote:

> > Anyway, the biggest cost is the conversion from/to the 64bit ns value
> > [...]
> Where do you get that notion from? Have you personally measured the
> performance and code size impact of it? If yes, would you mind to share
> the resulting data with us?
> Our data is that the use of 64-bit nsec_t significantly reduces the size
> of a representative piece of code (object size in bytes):
> AMD64 I386 ARM PPC32 M68K
> nsec_t_ops 226 284 252 428 206
> timespec_ops 412 324 448 640 342
> i.e. a ~40% size reduction when going to nsec_t on m68k, in that
> particular function. Even larger, ~45% code size reduction on a true
> 64-bit platform.

Without any source these numbers are not verifiable. You don't even
mention here what that "representative piece of code" is...

Anyway, Thomas mentioned that this would be from the insert/remove code
and here you omitted the most important part of my mail:

typedef union {
u64 tv64;
struct {
#ifdef __BIG_ENDIAN
u32 sec, nsec;
u32 nsec, sec;
} tv;
} ktimespec;

IOW this would allow to keep the time value in timespec format and use
your nsec_t_ops for sorting.

bye, Roman
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: 2005-09-24 12:40    [W:0.066 / U:50.580 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site