On Tuesday 13 April 2010 10:08:56 Kim B. Heino wrote: > BusyBox 1.16.1 on a small armv4tl system: > > $ time hwclock -w > real 0m 24.34s > user 0m 0.00s > sys 0m 0.00s > > $ time hwclock -w > real 0m 24.07s > user 0m 0.01s > sys 0m 0.00s > > $ time hwclock -w > real 0m 24.20s > user 0m 0.00s > sys 0m 0.00s > > rem_usec seems to be about 996600 after every iteration. Changing sync > resolution from 1ms to 5ms helps, but there has to be better solution. > Denys?
I can confirm this on my armv4tl system image: wget http://impactlinux/com/fwl/downloads/binaries/system-image-armv4tl.tar.bz2 tar xvjf system-image-armv4tl.tar.bz2 cd system-image-armv4tl ./run-emulator.sh wait through the boot messages... (armv4tl) /home # time hwclock -w real 0m 24.98s user 0m 0.01s sys 0m 0.01s This assumes you have qemu 0.12.x installed. Rob P.S: As expected, application emulation is useless here: $ qemu-arm ./hwclock Unsupported ioctl: cmd=0xffffffff80247009 hwclock: RTC_RD_TIME: Function not implemented -- Latency is more important than throughput. It's that simple. - Linus Torvalds _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
