[Python-Dev] Drop the new time.wallclock() function? (original) (raw)

Matt Joiner anacrolix at gmail.com
Wed Mar 14 17:11:56 CET 2012


I have some observations regarding this:

Victor's existing time.monotonic and time.wallclock make use of QueryPerformanceCounter, and CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW as possible. Both of these are hardware-based counters, their monotonicity is just a convenient property of the timer sources. Furthermore, time values can actually vary depending on the processor the call is served on. time.hardware()? time.monotonic_raw()?

There are bug reports on Linux that CLOCK_MONOTONIC isn't always monotonic. This is why CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW was created. There's also the issue of time leaps (forward), which also isn't a problem with the latter form. time.monotonic(raw_only=False)?

The real value of "monotonic" timers is that they don't leap backwards, and preferably don't leap forwards. Whether they are absolute is of no consequence. I would suggest that the API reflect this, and that more specific time values be obtained using the proper raw syscall wrapper (like time.clock_gettime) if required. time.relative(strict=False)?

The ultimate use of the function name being established is for use in timeouts and relative timings.

Where an option is present, it disallows fallbacks like CLOCK_MONOTONIC and other weaker forms:



More information about the Python-Dev mailing list