search for: sys_clock_getttime64

...ted to some degree. > Any suggestions here? Should we plan to do that consolitdation based on > your new version, or just add clock_gettime64 in arm32 and x86-32, and then > be done with it? The other ones will obviously still be fast for 32-bit time_t > and will have a working non-vdso sys_clock_getttime64(). In principle consolidating all those implementations should be possible to some extent and probably worthwhile. What's arch specific are the actual accessors to the hardware clocks. > I also wonder about clock_getres(): half the architectures seem to implement > it in vdso, but notab...

...d could be consolidated to some degree. Any suggestions here? Should we plan to do that consolitdation based on your new version, or just add clock_gettime64 in arm32 and x86-32, and then be done with it? The other ones will obviously still be fast for 32-bit time_t and will have a working non-vdso sys_clock_getttime64(). I also wonder about clock_getres(): half the architectures seem to implement it in vdso, but notably arm32 and x86 don't, and I had not expected it to be performance critical given that the result is easily cached in user space. Arnd

Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime() implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet another slightly different copy of the same code. Especially the extended switch case is problematic as the compiler tends to generate a jump table which then requires to use retpolines. If jump tables are disabled it adds yet another conditional to the existing

Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime() implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet another slightly different copy of the same code. Especially the extended switch case is problematic as the compiler tends to generate a jump table which then requires to use retpolines. If jump tables are disabled it adds yet another conditional to the existing