On 16/02/12 06:43, Guido van Rossum wrote: > This does not explain why microseconds aren't good enough. It seems > none of the clocks involved can actually measure even relative time > intervals more accurate than 100ns, and I expect that kernels don't > actually keep their clock more accurate than milliseconds. I gather that modern x86 CPUs have a counter that keeps track of time down to a nanosecond or so by counting clock cycles. In principle it seems like a kernel should be able to make use of it in conjunction with other timekeeping hardware to produce nanosecond-resolution timestamps. Whether any existing kernel actually does that is another matter. It probably isn't worth the bother for things like file timestamps, where the time taken to execute the system call that modifies the file is likely to be several orders of magnitude larger. Until we have computers with terahertz clocks and gigahertz disk drives, it seems like a rather theoretical issue. And it doesn't look like Mr. Moore is going to give us anything like that any time soon. -- Greg
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4