Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 15:18:04 -0500 (EST) From: Kelly Yancey <kbyanc@posi.net> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: microtime vs getmicrotime Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10001031510010.16789-100000@kronos.alcnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.05.10001031059001.11032-100000@kronos.alcnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 3 Jan 2000, Kelly Yancey wrote:
>
> Scanning through sys/kern_clock.c it looks like getmicrotime is
> preferable to microtime since only getmicrotime accounts for
> tco_method (set via the kern.timecounter sysctl). The same is true with
> getnanotime vs nanotime, etc.
> However, I've noticed a good bit of kernel code is still calling
> microtime and nanotime rather than the get- versions:
>
Replying to myself :)
Once I got some food in me, I was able to think about this a little more
clearly. The best I can figure is that anything which requires accurate
timing calls {micro,nano}time to actually access the timecounter and get
the current time. However, any interfaces which either a) don't care how
accurate the timing is or b) are just passing the information on to
userland call get{micro,nano}time instead to that the kern.timecounter
sysctl preference is enforced. Is this correct? Thanks,
Kelly
--
Kelly Yancey - kbyanc@posi.net - Richmond, VA
Analyst / E-business Development, Bell Industries http://www.bellind.com/
Maintainer, BSD Driver Database http://www.posi.net/freebsd/drivers/
Coordinator, Team FreeBSD http://www.posi.net/freebsd/Team-FreeBSD/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.05.10001031510010.16789-100000>