Re: rfc: high-resolution timer framework

[christos%astron.com@localhost (Christos Zoulas)]

In article <20081022082354.GJ15858%shisha.kicks-ass.org@localhost>,
Alexander Shishkin  <alexander.shishkin%teleca.com@localhost> wrote:
>On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 01:48:35PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 02:07:48PM +0300, Alexander Shishkin wrote:
>> > On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 05:35:04PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> > Now I've come to think of it, in the present of these patches it really
>> > is similar to CLOCK_MONOTONIC, not CLOCK_REALTIME, but that's not the
>> > case. I wanted to propose to have both in kernel for a certain time so
>> > that it is easier to compare using various benchmarks, which is better
>> > and what performance issues might arise with both.
>> > 
>> > After that, if the idea proves feasible (which I hope it does), callout
>> > mechanism could be made to use this approach as well, instead of the
>> > periodic timer interrupt.
>> > 
>> > And after that, we can start thinking about eliminating the periodic
>> > timer interrupt per se whenever a one-shot hardware timers are
>> > available.
>> 
>> Here's [1] the updated patchset, against current HEAD.
>> 
>
>Once again, the updated patchset is here [1]. The most recent patchset
>is also linked here [2].
>
>[1]: http://koowaldah.org/people/ash/netbsd/221008/
>[2]: http://koowaldah.org/people/ash/netbsd/PENDING-CURRENT/

Should I commit this?

christos