Re: rfc: high-resolution timer framework

[Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin%teleca.com@localhost>]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 02:42:43PM +0000, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 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?
Well, I'm all for it. But since this doesn't modify behavior of any
existing interfaces (only extending one), it's fairly safe. Anyway,
here's the updated-to-current version [1] with its permanent link [2].

No new changes, aside from adding a manual page and rediffing.

[1]: http://koowaldah.org/people/ash/netbsd/241008/
[2]: http://koowaldah.org/people/ash/netbsd/PENDING-CURRENT/

Regards,
--
Alex