Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2014 20:05:00 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Subject: Re: Change default VFS timestamp precision? Message-ID: <77322.1418933100@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <201412181436.31701.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <201412161348.41219.jhb@freebsd.org> <CAJ-Vmokkc-p4-keMExxT%2BwyjugA8zYRS2XRv6VucWnfH0iw_Pw@mail.gmail.com> <70449.1418843354@critter.freebsd.dk> <201412181436.31701.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <201412181436.31701.jhb@freebsd.org>, John Baldwin writes: >> >Surely there has to be better ways of doing this stuff. Computers keep >> >getting faster; it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that we >> >could see a compiler read, compile and spit out a .o inside of a >> >millisecond. (Obviously not C++, but..) >> >> A millisecond is pushing it, all things considered, it would have to >> be an utterly trivial source file for a utterly trivial language. >Eh, the use case I most care about is back-to-back updates to a directory on >an NFS server. My comments above was only about compilers in reference to Adrians point. >I don't understand >why you think TSP_USEC is slower than TSP_NSEC. microtime() and nanotime() >both just call bintime() and then convert the result using similar math. Because of the pointless nano->micro conversion which makes TSP_USEC take a division longer to deliver a less precise result than TSP_NSEC. -- 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?77322.1418933100>