From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Nov 17 23:36:11 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (adsl-63-202-177-210.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [63.202.177.210]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6190A37B479; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:36:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from mass.osd.bsdi.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mass.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eAI7fCF01133; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:41:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from msmith@mass.osd.bsdi.com) Message-Id: <200011180741.eAI7fCF01133@mass.osd.bsdi.com> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: John Baldwin , John Hay , mark@grondar.za, arch@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new monotime() call for all architectures. In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:53:09 +0100." <26014.974490789@critter> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 23:41:12 -0800 From: Mike Smith Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > >> Ok, I just thought the "mono" in his function name is for monotonic. If > >> you are staying on one processor it will work, but if the timestamps > >> have scheduling inbetween the timestamps and you land on a different > >> processor it won't be monotonic anymore. > > > >It's close enough. :) > > If it isn't dealing properly with async PCC/TSC counters on SMP machines > it shouldn't be called "monoanyting". > > I guess I totally object to the name now :-) In an attempt to tow the bikeshed away behind a truck, can I suggest that we just call it "get_jiffiecount" (to tip our hats to the Linux folks) and get on with it? -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] V I C T O R Y N O T V E N G E A N C E To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message