TSC instead of ACPI: powerd doesn't work anymore (to be
expected?)
Poul-Henning Kamp
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Mon Oct 31 02:26:42 PST 2005
In message <4365EF7B.1020706 at freebsd.org>, David Xu writes:
>Robert Watson wrote:
>>
>>
>> It has been suggested that the former can operate quite well with
>> significantly reduced quality. It has alos been suggested that most
>> applications could operate fine with somewhat reduced quality, but that
>> the API definitions don't say anything about how to specify application
>> quality requirements vs performance requirements for time measurement.
>
>Can we change gettimeofday and clock_gettime to lower resolution now?
I can live with gettimeofday(2) and time(3) being degraded.
I am going to insist that clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, CLOCK_UPTIME)
remain precise.
>I think 1000hz/s is enough for most applications, since a thread can
>never sleep shorter than a tick for years.
(Famous last words!)
Time is not just a matter of sleeping.
>We can introduce
>hrtime_t clock_gethrtime(clockid_t clock) to get hi-resolution time
>as the one seen in RTLinux, or gethrtime() as seen in Solaris (Daniel
>Eischen said?)
You know ?
This is just a great example of why people feel the autocrap tools
is the way to write portable code :-(
The open group specifically allow clock_gettime() to implement
more timescales, so what did those fools go and invent even more
library functions for ?
Poul-Henning
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at 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.
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list