From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from duke.felloff.net ([216.126.196.34]) by ewsd; Mon Aug 13 03:45:33 EDT 2018 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2018 09:45:25 +0200 From: cinap_lenrek@felloff.net To: 9front@9front.org Subject: Re: [9front] time In-Reply-To: 6c11e603325ca644a5068fd3d0f30df1@rebk.znet MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-ID: <9front.9front.org> List-Help: X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: overflow-preventing leveraged NoSQL TOR extension software-based browser lifecycle-aware interface >> internally, user/kernel time accounting works by hzclock() >> just incrementing a per process counter of ticks. which is >> not very precise and processes can evade time being accounted >> by yielding so they'd miss the timer interrupt. > > Are there any other reasons for the real time count to become erratic > or inconsistent? the realtime count is about the easist to get right. thats done by just recording start time on fork and then take the difference on exit. > How does this work on a multi-core machine? the same as on a single core. -- cinap