On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> >
> >> The HPET is so amazingly slow that this is barely a win. It adds
> >
> > That's nonsense. It's definitely a win to access HPET directly
> >
On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>
>> The HPET is so amazingly slow that this is barely a win. It adds
>
> That's nonsense. It's definitely a win to access HPET directly
> especially on older systems with TSC wreckage. Why do yo
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The HPET is so amazingly slow that this is barely a win. It adds
That's nonsense. It's definitely a win to access HPET directly
especially on older systems with TSC wreckage. Why do you want to
enforce a syscall if we can read out the data straight f
On Sat, Feb 1, 2014 at 7:43 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> The HPET is so amazingly slow that this is barely a win.
>
> What happens on CPUs where the TSC cannot be used for the clock?
vclock_gettime, etc will fall back to using syscalls, just like they
would on systems us
Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> The HPET is so amazingly slow that this is barely a win.
What happens on CPUs where the TSC cannot be used for the clock?
> it scares me a tiny bit to map a piece of crappy hardware where every
> userspace program can poke at it (even if said poking is read-only).
> Let's
The HPET is so amazingly slow that this is barely a win. It adds
complexity, and it scares me a tiny bit to map a piece of crappy
hardware where every userspace program can poke at it (even if said
poking is read-only). Let's just remove it.
This is probably a tiny speedup on kvmclock systems.
6 matches
Mail list logo