| To: | Jamal Hadi <hadi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: gettime: Was (Re: Route cache performance under stress |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:08:03 +0200 |
| Cc: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, greearb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20030611065255.L39678@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| References: | <3EE682B8.8060708@candelatech.com> <20030610.182234.74725315.davem@redhat.com> <3EE68B15.60802@candelatech.com> <20030610.203325.41658167.davem@redhat.com> <20030611065255.L39678@shell.cyberus.ca> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Wed, Jun 11, 2003 at 07:54:53AM -0400, Jamal Hadi wrote: > > Ok, time to go into another separate thread ;-> > > Sounds like a good idea. > > if (skbneedstimestamp) > do_gettimeofday(&skb->stamp); > else > defertimestamp() Another way is to just store jiffies (= 10 or 1ms accuracy) This should be nearly zero cost and accurate enough at least for TCP. -Andi |
| Previous by Date: | gettime: Was (Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: 3c59x (was Route cache performance under stress), Jamal Hadi |
| Previous by Thread: | gettime: Was (Re: Route cache performance under stress, Jamal Hadi |
| Next by Thread: | Re: gettime: Was (Re: Route cache performance under stress, David S. Miller |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |