Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 04:25:44 +1000 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: David Greenman-Lawrence <dg@dglawrence.com>, Alfred Perlstein <bright@mu.org>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/kern uipc_socket2.c Message-ID: <20020817041512.K8159-100000@gamplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <14228.1029507987@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <20020816235317.I7073-100000@gamplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: > > >Not unless a very raw timestamp method were used. Using nanotime() > >would add a 10(?)% overhead to some syscalls even if the hardware part > >took no time. Something using rdtsc() in syscall() might be fast enough, > >but this would give similar problems for scaling of very large counts > > The scaling issue could possibly be dealt with using a periodic (1 > Hz) function which does the scaling and accumulation in timeval > format. I guess doing that for all processes would be not much worse than schedcpu() (schedcpu() would be a good place to do it). Is schedcpu() ever too inefficient with any actual number of processes on current machines? Bruce To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020817041512.K8159-100000>