From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Oct 29 01:09:27 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A87316A41F;
	Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:09:26 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from davidxu@freebsd.org)
Message-ID: <4362CBC2.8050602@freebsd.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:09:22 +0800
From: David Xu <davidxu@freebsd.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.7.11) Gecko/20050911
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>
References: <35696.1130538037@critter.freebsd.dk>
	<20051029005719.I20147@fledge.watson.org>
In-Reply-To: <20051029005719.I20147@fledge.watson.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pertti Kosunen <pertti.kosunen@pp.nic.fi>,
	Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, current@freebsd.org,
	"Yuriy N. Shkandybin" <jura@networks.ru>
Subject: Re: Timers and timing, was: MySQL Performance 6.0rc1
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 01:09:27 -0000

Robert Watson wrote:

> Another important question is whether using these alternative time 
> access methods in user space improves the performance of any of the 
> applications we care about.  Hence providing a patch that someone can 
> try -- while the microbenchmarks seem to show improved performance, 
> will the applications? I suspect it will in some important cases, but 
> there's only one way to find out.
>
> It strikes me that replacing time(3) with something that retrieves 
> CLOCK_SECOND shouldn't harm time(3) semantics.  Likewise, keeping 
> CLOCK_REALTIME as is is likely OK -- if an application requests it 
> using clock_gettime(), then it is presumably looking for high 
> accuracy.  It's gettimeofday() that's the troubling one -- it's widely 
> used to query the time in applications, and its API suggests 
> microsecond resolution.
>
> Robert N M Watson
>
>
thread libraries use clock_gettime, this becauses there is
pthread_cond_timedwait and other synchronization objects
like rwlock, and mutex all have a timeout version, I think
pthread_cond_timedwait is mostly used in some applications,
though normally, application is not looking for high accuracy.
they will get benefit from the clock_gettime speed improvement.