I would like to see some performance measurements for this patch on a system
with fast storage and multiple 10 GbE links.
If not, at least a good analysis of the expected performance impact the patch
will have on major architectures.
Tonight I will think about whether the 2038 thing even matters or whether we
just need a comment explaining why it's safe.
On May 11, 2015 11:38 AM, Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de> wrote:
>
> On Monday 11 May 2015 08:05:05 Tina Ruchandani wrote:
> > 'struct frame' uses two variables to store the sent timestamp - 'struct
> > timeval' and jiffies. jiffies is used to avoid discrepancies caused by
> > updates to system time. 'struct timeval' uses 32-bit representation for
> > seconds which will overflow in year 2038.
> > This patch does the following:
> > - Replace the use of 'struct timeval' and jiffies with ktime_t, which
> > is a 64-bit timestamp and is year 2038 safe.
> > - ktime_t provides both long range (like jiffies) and high resolution
> > (like timeval). Using ktime_get (monotonic time) instead of wall-clock
> > time prevents any discprepancies caused by updates to system time.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Tina Ruchandani <ruchandani.t...@gmail.com>
>
> Very nice!
>
> > @@ -499,32 +497,15 @@ resend(struct aoedev *d, struct frame *f)
> > static int
> > tsince_hr(struct frame *f)
> > {
> > - struct timeval now;
> > + ktime_t now;
> > int n;
> >
> > - do_gettimeofday(&now);
> > - n = now.tv_usec - f->sent.tv_usec;
> > - n += (now.tv_sec - f->sent.tv_sec) * USEC_PER_SEC;
> > + now = ktime_get();
> > + n = ktime_to_us(ktime_sub(now, f->sent));
> >
>
> I would cut four extra lines by writing this as
>
> return ktime_us_delta(ktime_get(), f->sent));
>
> but the effect is exactly the same.
>
> With that change, please add
>
> Reviewed-by: Arnd Bergmann <a...@arndb.de>
>
> Arnd
