From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct 29 07:38:24 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F336216A41F;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:38:23 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9379C43D45;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:38:23 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 002F9BC84;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:38:21 +0000 (UTC)
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:01:59 BST."
	<20051029005719.I20147@fledge.watson.org> 
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:38:21 +0200
Message-ID: <37685.1130571501@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: Pertti Kosunen <pertti.kosunen@pp.nic.fi>, David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>,
	"Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@networks.ru>, current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Timers and timing, was: MySQL Performance 6.0rc1 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 07:38:24 -0000

In message <20051029005719.I20147@fledge.watson.org>, Robert Watson writes:

>It strikes me that replacing time(3) with something that retrieves 
>CLOCK_SECOND shouldn't harm time(3) semantics.

It will mean that time(3) is can do minor (~1/hz) timetravel relative
to the other calls:

	clock_gettime()			time(3)

	123.999999123			
					123
	124.000000234
					123
	124.000020300
					123
	124.000983092
					123
		(hardclock happens)
	124.001020934
					124

If we can live with this, there is no problem.

>Likewise, keeping 
>CLOCK_REALTIME as is is likely OK -- if an application requests it using 
>clock_gettime(), then it is presumably looking for high accuracy.

Yes, I think clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME) should remain unchanged.

>It's 
>gettimeofday() that's the troubling one -- it's widely used to query the 
>time in applications, and its API suggests microsecond resolution.

And we don't really have a cheap way to do that...

-- 
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.