Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 16:26:27 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> 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: <14228.1029507987@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 17 Aug 2002 00:13:23 %2B1000." <20020816235317.I7073-100000@gamplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20020816235317.I7073-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >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 The scaling issue could possibly be dealt with using a periodic (1 Hz) function which does the scaling and accumulation in timeval format. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. 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?14228.1029507987>