Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> writes: >> Operating system folks may have worked hard to minimize the cost of >> system calls to gettimeofday() in order to help applications that do >> so, but I somehow feel even dirtier to hear proposal to do so to >> replace a signal that we set and forget, to be reminded once every >> second. > > I think that ship has sailed already. Look at display_throughput(). One > of the first things it does is to look at the wallclock a.k.a. > getnanotime(). It can be fixed if we wanted to, though, no? Instead of doing all the computation for the latest lap, and then decide not to show by looking at the progress_update flag (set by the interrupt), we can accumulate the total in the progress->throughput struct until we see the progress_update flag, at which time we can look at the wallclock time, compute the time difference, perform clever division, etc. > That said, I am not very happy about the new calls introduced in > display_progress(), either. I'll see whether I can produce some > performance measurements. > > I observe a behavior change with delayed progress indicators that I have > to understand and fix it before I can submit the cleaned up patches. Thanks.
