Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 14:13:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> To: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.ORG>, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>, arch@FreeBSD.ORG, Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org>, Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Subject: Re: 64 bit times revisited.. Message-ID: <200110262113.f9QLDBJ38657@apollo.backplane.com> References: <XFMail.011026131501.jhb@FreeBSD.org> <200110262108.f9QL8n238592@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
: : ::> ::> If you look in sys/kern/kern_tc.c you can see how much extra ::> gunk that results in, checking for overruns on the middle part and ::> whats not. ::> ::> There can be no doubt that the best timestamp representation is ::> pure binary, originating at the second, and that is how my proposal ::> is constructed: ::> ::> <-- 32bit --><-- 32bit --> . <-- 32bit --><-- 32bit --> ::> 1 2 3 4 :: ::IOW, a fixed-point number. This is definitely the optimal solution presented ::so far for the in-kernel time keeping, IMO. And I will also note that trying to represent both seconds and sub-seconds in a single fixed point integer is a real bad idea. It makes life unnecessarily difficult for the 95% of the code that only needs the seconds portion. Any fractional representation should be a SEPARATE field. We will have time_t, in seconds, and we can have struct ntm representing both the seconds and fractional portions (as separate fields). -Matt To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110262113.f9QLDBJ38657>