Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:13:23 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: David Greenman-Lawrence <dg@dglawrence.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern uipc_socket2.c Message-ID: <20020816235317.I7073-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <8515.1029480600@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20020815223211.F42978@nexus.root.com>, David Greenman-Lawrence writ > > Calcru() is a tough critter - it would be real nice if Bruce (or anyone) > >could give me some thoughts on that. See another reply. > We may have arrived at the point where it is cheaper to timestamp at all > boundary conditions instead of doing statistical redistribution. Not unless a very raw timestamp method were used. Using nanotime() would add a 10(?)% overhead to some syscalls even if the hardware part took no time. Something using rdtsc() in syscall() might be fast enough, but this would give similar problems for scaling of very large counts (cycle counts instead of tick counts). (nanotime() avoids these problems by scaling delta-counts, but that is inefficient if it is called often.) Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020816235317.I7073-100000>