* Naveen N. Rao wrote (on 2017-10-06 09:28:30
+):
> On 2017/09/18 09:23AM, Santosh Sivaraj wrote:
> > Current vDSO64 implementation does not have support for coarse clocks
> > (CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE), for which it falls back
> > to system call, increasing the response
* Naveen N. Rao wrote (on 2017-10-06 11:25:28
+):
> On 2017/09/18 09:23AM, Santosh Sivaraj wrote:
> > Current vDSO64 implementation does not have support for coarse clocks
> > (CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE), for which it falls back
> > to system call, increasing the response
On 2017/09/18 09:23AM, Santosh Sivaraj wrote:
> Current vDSO64 implementation does not have support for coarse clocks
> (CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE), for which it falls back
> to system call, increasing the response time, vDSO implementation reduces
> the cycle time. Below is a b
On 2017/09/18 09:23AM, Santosh Sivaraj wrote:
> Current vDSO64 implementation does not have support for coarse clocks
> (CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE), for which it falls back
> to system call, increasing the response time, vDSO implementation reduces
> the cycle time. Below is a b
Current vDSO64 implementation does not have support for coarse clocks
(CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE, CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE), for which it falls back
to system call, increasing the response time, vDSO implementation reduces
the cycle time. Below is a benchmark of the difference in execution time
with and
