Date: Wed, 17 Dec 2014 19:09:14 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <arch@freebsd.org>, Jilles Tjoelker <jilles@stack.nl> Subject: Re: Change default VFS timestamp precision? Message-ID: <70449.1418843354@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmokkc-p4-keMExxT%2BwyjugA8zYRS2XRv6VucWnfH0iw_Pw@mail.gmail.com> References: <201412161348.41219.jhb@freebsd.org> <20141216233844.GA1490@stack.nl> <2034186.iLaW9EGnEt@ralph.baldwin.cx> <70073.1418837301@critter.freebsd.dk> <CAJ-Vmokkc-p4-keMExxT%2BwyjugA8zYRS2XRv6VucWnfH0iw_Pw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <CAJ-Vmokkc-p4-keMExxT+wyjugA8zYRS2XRv6VucWnfH0iw_Pw@mail.gmail= .com> , Adrian Chadd writes: >> I think it is over 10 years ago when make(1) first started seeing >> identical timestamps which wasn't. >> >> In most Makefiles this doesn't matter, but there are cases, in particul= ar >> in less integrated families of makefiles than our own. > >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. Given that it has epsilon cost, switching to TSP_HZ should be a no-brainer, I've been running that for ages. Why TSP_USEC exists is beyond me, it's slower and worse than TSP_NSEC. But going to TSP_NSEC by default seems unwarranted to me. -- = 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?70449.1418843354>