Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > here comes, for review, a patch which reduces the overhead of > > > > > clock_gettime by directly reading the tsc in user-space for > > > > > architectures that support it. > > > > > > > > Highly welcome. But I have one concern: How and when do you propagate > > > > wallclock_offset changes to user space? > > > > > > Since clock_settime is not implemented, never, but if clock_settime was > > > implemented, clock_settime would re-issue the __xn_sys_info syscall. > > > > This excludes automatic clock adjustment, something I'm convinced we > > will have to provide in the future. > > When we provide automatic clock adjustment, we will have to devise > something more subtle than just an offset, so we will have to redesign
I think offset + scaling factor. > posix clocks support anyway. Maybe clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME) will > then always be a syscall. After all, rt_timer_read is a syscall. If you > want the fast clock, use CLOCK_MONOTONIC or rt_timer_tsc. Actually, the issue of the intermediate approach starts earlier: as soon as you have clock_settime. Then you need to sync the offset across applications in different processes. Having clock_monotonic (and maybe also rt_timer_tsc2ns) as a fast variant already now is not bad. But beyond that, before introducing a new interface between kernel and user space, I would like to consider the effort to get it future-proof immediately. That doesn't mean that we already have to implement clock adjustment, but we may already prepare the prerequisites. Jan _______________________________________________ Xenomai-core mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core
