From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 19 May 2014 13:25:42 EDT."
	<36c5eca0f06e9acbe2fac19067f457d8@ladd.quanstro.net>
References: <92606a17ce255a2e74049e4090d948b3@proxima.alt.za>
	<36c5eca0f06e9acbe2fac19067f457d8@ladd.quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 12:50:16 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20140519195016.B21E6B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] syscall 53
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e8bf64a8-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Mon, 19 May 2014 13:25:42 EDT erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
> i would be very surprised if there were any gain in accuracy.  the
> accuracy is going to be dominated by the most inaccurate term, and
> that's likely going to be timesync, and on the order of milliseconds.

Speaking of time and accuracy....

I am adding some logic to synchronize with the PPS signal from
the GPS device that I hooked up to a RaspberryPi.  With this
change the TOD clock should be accurate to within 10 to 20 µs.
So I for one welcome the new syscall! [Though its introduction
could've been better managed]

But using a TOD clock for measuring performance seems wrong
since it will also have to account for leapseconds (at the
moment timesync happily ignores leapseconds).