We have an ARM9 using the 3.2 kernel -- everything seems to work fine. Recently I was asked to add some code to add a 50ms pulse on some GPIO lines at startup. The pulse code is fine; I can see the lines go down and up, as expected. What does not work the way I expected is the udelay() function. Reading the docs makes me think the units are in microseconds, but as measured in the logic analyzer it was way too short. So I finally added this code to get 50ms.
// wait 50ms to be sure PCIE reset takes
for (i=0;i<6100;i++) // measured on logic analyzer - seems wrong to me!!
{
__udelay(2000); // 2000 is max
}
I don't like it, but it works fine. There are some odd constants and instructions in the udelay code. Can someone enlighten me as to how this is supposed to work? This code is called after all the clocks are initialized, so everything else seems ok.
According to Linus in this thread:
If it's about 1% off, it's all fine. If somebody picked a delay value
that is so sensitive to small errors in the delay that they notice
that - or even notice something like 5% - then they have picked too
short of a delay.
udelay() was never really meant to be some kind of precision
instrument. Especially with CPU's running at different frequencies,
we've historically had some rather wild fluctuation. The traditional
busy loop ends up being affected not just by interrupts, but also by
things like cache alignment (we used to inline it), and then later the
TSC-based one obviously depended on TSC's being stable (which they
weren't for a while).
So historically, we've seen udelay() being really off (ie 50% off
etc), I wouldn't worry about things in the 1% range.
Linus
So it's not going to be perfect. It's going to be off. By how much is dependent on a lot of factors. Instead of using a for loop, consider using mdelay instead. It might be a bit more accurate. From the O'Reilly Linux Device Drivers book:
The udelay call should be called only for short time lapses because
the precision of loops_per_second is only eight bits, and noticeable
errors accumulate when calculating long delays. Even though the
maximum allowable delay is nearly one second (since calculations
overflow for longer delays), the suggested maximum value for udelay is
1000 microseconds (one millisecond). The function mdelay helps in
cases where the delay must be longer than one millisecond.
It's also important to remember that udelay is a busy-waiting function
(and thus mdelay is too); other tasks can't be run during the time
lapse. You must therefore be very careful, especially with mdelay, and
avoid using it unless there's no other way to meet your goal.
Currently, support for delays longer than a few microseconds and
shorter than a timer tick is very inefficient. This is not usually an
issue, because delays need to be just long enough to be noticed by
humans or by the hardware. One hundredth of a second is a suitable
precision for human-related time intervals, while one millisecond is a
long enough delay for hardware activities.
Specifically the line "the suggested maximum value for udelay is 1000 microseconds (one millisecond)" sticks out at me since you state that 2000 is the max. From this document on inserting delays:
mdelay is macro wrapper around udelay, to account for possible
overflow when passing large arguments to udelay
So it's possible you're running into an overflow error. Though I wouldn't normally consider 2000 to be a "large argument".
But if you need real accuracy in your timing, you'll need to deal with the offset like you have, roll your own or use a different kernel. For information on how to roll your own delay function using assembler or using hard real time kernels, see this article on High-resolution timing.
See also: Linux Kernel: udelay() returns too early?
Related
I am writing my first NES emulator in C. The goal is to make it easily understandable and cycle accurate (does not necessarily have to be code-efficient though), in order to play games at normal 'hardware' speed. When digging into the technical references of the 6502, it seems like the instructions consume more than one CPU cycle - and also has different cycles depending on given conditions (such as branching). My plan is to create read and write functions, and also group opcodes by addressing modes using a switch.
The question is: When I have a multiple-cycle instruction, such as a BRK, do I need to emulate what is exactly happening in each cycle:
#Method 1
cycle - action
1 - read BRK opcode
2 - read padding byte (ignored)
3 - store high byte of PC
4 - store low byte of PC
5 - store status flags with B flag set
6 - low byte of target address
7 - high byte of target address
...or can I just execute all the required operations in one 'cycle' (one switch case) and do nothing in the remaining cycles?
#Method 2
1 - read BRK opcode,
read padding byte (ignored),
store high byte of PC,
store low byte of PC,
store status flags with B flag set,
low byte of target address,
high byte of target address
2 - do nothing
3 - do nothing
4 - do nothing
5 - do nothing
6 - do nothing
7 - do nothing
Since both methods consume the desired 7 cycles, will there be no difference between the two? (accuracy-wise)
Personally I think method 1 is the way-to-go solution, however I cannot think of a proper, easy way to implement it... (Please help!)
Do you 'need' to? It depends on the software. Imagine the simplest example:
STA ($56), Y
... which happens to hit a hardware register. If you don't do at least the write on the correct cycle then you've introduced a timing deficiency. The register you're writing to will be written to at the wrong time. What if it's something like a palette register, and the programmer is running a raster effect? Then you've just moved where the colour changes. You've changed the graphical output.
In practice, clever programmers do much smarter things than that — e.g. one might use a read-modify-write operation to read a hardware value at an exact cycle, modify it, then write it back at some other exact cycle.
So my answer is:
most software isn't written so that the difference between (1) and (2) will have any effect; but
some definitely is, because the author was very clever; and
some definitely is, just because the author experimented until they found a cool effect, regardless of whether they were cognisant of the cause; and
in any case, when you find something that doesn't work properly on your emulator, how much time do you want to spend considering all the permutations and combinations of potential causes? Every one you can factor out is one less to consider.
Most emulators used to use your method (2). What normally happens is that they work with 90% of software. Then there's a few cases that don't work, for which the emulator author puts in a special case here, a special case there. Those usually ended up interacting poorly and the emulator spent the rest of its life oscillating between supporting different 95% combinations of available software until somebody wrote a better one.
So just go with method (1). It will cause some software that would otherwise be broken not to be so. Also it'll teach you more, and it'll definitely eliminate any potential motivation for special cases so it'll keep your code cleaner. It'll be marginally slower but I think your computer can probably handle it.
Other tips: the 6502 has only a few addressing modes, and the addressing mode entirely dictates the timing. This document is everything you need to know for perfect timing. If you want perfect cleanliness, your switch table can just pick an addressing mode and a central operation, then exit and you can branch on addressing mode to do the main action.
If you're going to use vanilla read and write methods, which is smart on a 6502 as every single cycle is either a read or a write so it's almost all you need to say, just be careful of the method signatures. For example, the 6502 has a SYNC pin which allows an observer to discriminate an ordinary read from an opcode read. Check whether the NES exposes that to cartridges, as it's often used on systems that expose it for implicit paging and the main identifying characteristic of the NES is that there are hundreds of paging schemes.
EDIT: minor updates:
it's not actually completely true to say that a 6502 always reads or writes; it also has an RDY input. If the RDY input is asserted and the 6502 intends to read, it will instead halt while maintaining the intended read address. Rarely used in practice because it's insufficient for common tasks like allowing somebody else to take possession of memory — the 6502 will write regardless of the RDY input, it's really meant to help with single-stepping — and seemingly not included on the NES cartridge pinout, you needn't implement it for that machine.
per the same pinout, the sync signal also doesn't seem to be exposed to cartridges on that system.
Ordinary single-threaded *nix programs can be benchmarked with utils like time, i.e.:
# how long does `seq` take to count to 100,000,000
/usr/bin/time seq 100000000 > /dev/null
Outputs:
1.16user 0.06system 0:01.23elapsed 100%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 1944maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (0major+80minor)pagefaults 0swaps
...but numbers returned are always system dependent, which in a sense also measures the user's hardware.
Is there some non-relative benchmarking method or command-line util which would return approximately the same virtual timing numbers on any system, (or at least a reasonably large subset of systems)? Just like grep -m1 bogo /proc/cpuinfo returns a roughly approximate but stable unit, such a benchmark should also return a somewhat similar unit of duration.
Suppose for benchmarking ordinary commands we have a magic util bogobench (where "bogo" is an adjective signifying "a somewhat bogus status", but not necessarily having algorithms in common with BogoMIPs):
bogobench foo bar.data
And we run this on two physically separate systems:
a 1996 Pentium II
a 2015 Xeon
Desired output would be something like:
21 bogo-seconds
So bogobench should return about the same number in both cases, even though it probably would finish in much less time on the 2nd system.
A hardware emulator like qemu might be one approach, but not necessarily the only approach:
Insert the code to benchmark into a wrapper script bogo.sh
Copy bogo.sh to a bootable Linux disk image bootimage.iso, within a directory where bogo.sh would autorun then promptly shutdown the emulator. During which it outputs some form of timing data to parse into bogo-seconds.
Run bootimage.iso using one of qemu's more minimal -machine options:
qemu-system-i386 -machine type=isapc bootimage.iso
But I'm not sure how to make qemu use a virtual clock, rather than the host CPU's clock, and qemu itself seems like a heavy tool for a seemingly simple task. (Really MAME or MESS would be more versatile emulators than qemu for such a task -- but I'm not adept with MAME, although MAME currently has some capacity for 80486 PC emulation.)
Online we sometimes compare and contrast timing-based benchmarks made on machine X with one made on machine Y. Whereas I'd like both user X and Y to be able to do their benchmark on a virtual machine Z, with bonus points for emulating X or Y (like MAME) if need be, except with no consideration of X or Y's real run-time, (unlike MAME where emulations are often playable). In this way users could report how programs perform in interesting cases without the programmer having to worry that the results were biased by idiosyncrasies of a user's hardware, such as CPU quirks, background processes hogging resources, etc.
Indeed, even on the user's own hardware, a time based benchmark can be unreliable, as often the user can't be sure some background process, (or bug, or hardware error like a bad sector, or virus), might not be degrading some aspect of performance. Whereas a more virtual benchmark ought to be less susceptible to such influences.
The only sane way I see to implement this is with a cycle-accurate simulator for some kind of hardware design.
AFAIK, no publicly-available cycle-accurate simulators for modern x86 hardware exist, because it's extremely complex and despite a lot of stuff being known about x86 microarchitecture internals (Agner Fog's stuff, Intel's and AMD's own optimization guides, and other stuff in the x86 tag wiki), enough of the behaviour is still a black box full of CPU-design trade-secrets that it's at best possible to simulate something similar. (E.g. branch prediction is definitely one of the most secret but highly important parts).
While it should be possible to come close to simulating Intel Sandybridge or Haswell's actual pipeline and out-of-order core / ROB / RS (at far slower than realtime), nobody has done it that I know of.
But cycle-accurate simulators for other hardware designs do exist: Donald Knuth's MMIX architecture is a clean RISC design that could actually be built in silicon, but currently only exists on paper.
From that link:
Of particular interest is the MMMIX meta-simulator, which is able to do dynamic scheduling of a complex pipeline, allowing superscalar execution with any number of functional units and with many varieties of caching and branch prediction, etc., including a detailed implementation of both hard and soft interrupts.
So you could use this as a reference machine for everyone to run their benchmarks on, and everyone could get comparable results that will tell you how fast something runs on MMIX (after compiling for MMIX with gcc). But not how fast it runs on x86 (presumably also compiling with gcc), which may differ by a significant factor even for two programs that do the same job a different way.
For [fastest-code] challenges over on the Programming puzzles and Code Golf site, #orlp created the GOLF architecture with a simulator that prints timing results, designed for exactly this purpose. It's a toy architecture with stuff like print to stdout by storing to 0xffffffffffffffff, so it's not necessarily going to tell you anything about how fast something will run on any real hardware.
There isn't a full C implementation for GOLF, AFAIK, so you can only really use it with hand-written asm. This is a big difference from MMIX, which optimizing compilers do target.
One practical approach that could (maybe?) be extended to be more accurate over time is to use existing tools to measure some hardware invariant performance metric(s) for the code under test, and then apply a formula to come up with your bogoseconds score.
Unfortunately most easily measurable hardware metrics are not invariant - rather, they depend on the hardware. An obvious one that should be invariant, however, would be "instructions retired". If the code is taking the same code paths every time it is run, the instructions retired count should be the same on all hardware1.
Then you apply some kind of nominal clock speed (let's say 1 GHz) and nominal CPI (let's say 1.0) to get your bogoseconds - if you measure 15e9 instructions, you output a result of 15 bogoseconds.
The primary flaw here is that the nominal CPI may be way off from the actual CPI! While most programs hover around 1 CPI, it's easy to find examples where they can approach 0.25 or whatever the inverse of the width is, or alternately be 10 or more if there are many lengthy stalls. Of course such extreme programs may be what you'd want to benchmark - and even if not you have the issue that if you are using your benchmark to evaluate code changes, it will ignore any improvements or regressions in CPI and look only at instruction count.
Still, it satisfies your requirement in as much as it effectively emulates a machine that executes exactly 1 instruction every cycle, and maybe it's a reasonable broad-picture approach. It is pretty easy to implement with tools like perf stat -e instructions (like one-liner easy).
To patch the holes then you could try to make the formula better - let's say you could add in a factor for cache misses to account for that large source of stalls. Unfortunately, how are you going to measure cache-misses in a hardware invariant way? Performance counters won't help - they rely on the behavior and sizes of your local caches. Well, you could use cachegrind to emulate the caches in a machine-independent way. As it turns out, cachegrind even covers branch prediction. So maybe you could plug your instruction count, cache miss and branch miss numbers into a better formula (e.g., use typical L2, L3, RAM latencies, and a typical cost for branch misses).
That's about as far as this simple approach will take you, I think. After that, you might as well just rip apart any of the existing x862 emulators and add your simple machine model right in there. You don't need to cycle accurate, just pick a nominal width and model it. Probably whatever underlying emulation cachegrind is going might be a good match and you get the cache and branch prediction modeling already for free.
1 Of course, this doesn't rule out bugs or inaccuracies in the instruction counting mechanism.
2 You didn't tag your question x86 - but I'm going to assume that's your target since you mentioned only Intel chips.
clock_monotonic_raw is only supported as of Linux 2.6.28.
is there another way i can get a monotonic time which isn't subject to NTP adjustments or the incremental adjustments performed by adjtime?
i can't use clock_monotonic since it's affected by NTP & adjtime.
Take a closer look at CLOCK_MONOTONIC instead of just CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW. I wanted to use CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW with condition waits, but found that it was not supported (Fedora 25/Linux 4.10.17).
The situation is vaguely infuriating, but the upshot on Linux, to the best of my current understanding, is:
CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW is the closest you are going to get to a square-wave accumulator running at constant frequency. However, this is well-suited to less than you might think.
CLOCK_MONOTONIC is based on CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW with some gradual frequency corrections applied that allow it to eventually overtake or fall behind some other clock reference. NTP and adjtime can both make these corrections. However, to avoid doing things like breaking the hell out of software builds, the clock is still guaranteed to monotonically advance:
"The adjustment that adjtime() makes to the clock is carried out in such a manner that the clock is always monotonically increasing."
--adjtime man page
"You lying bastard." --me
Yup-- that was the plan, but bugs exist in kernel versions before 2.6.32.19; see discussion here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3657433/3005946 which includes a link to a patch, if that affects you. It's hard for me to tell what the maximum error from that bug is (and I'd really, really like to know).
Even in the 4.x kernel, most POSIX synchronization objects don't seem to support CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW or CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE. I have found this out the hard way. ALWAYS error-check your *_setclock calls.
POSIX semaphores (sem_t) don't support ANY monotonic clocks at all, which is infuriating. If you need this, you will have to roll your own using condition-waits. (As a bonus, doing this will allow you to have semaphores with negative initial levels, which can be handy.)
If you're just trying to keep a synchronization object's wait-function from deadlocking forever, and you've got something like a three-second bailout, you can just use CLOCK_MONOTONIC and call it a day-- the adjustments CLOCK_MONOTONIC is subject to are, effectively, jitter correction, well-below your accuracy requirements. Even in the buggy implementations, CLOCK_MONOTONIC is not going to jump backwards an hour or something like that. Again, what happens instead is that things like adjtime tweak the frequency of the clock, so that it gradually overtakes, or falls behind, some other, parallel-running clock.
CLOCK_REALTIME is in fact CLOCK_MONOTONIC with some other correction factors applied. Or the other way around. Whatever, it's effectively the same thing. The important part is that, if there is any chance your application will change time zones (moving vehicle, aircraft, ship, cruise missile, rollerblading cyborg) or encounter administrative clock adjustments, you should definitely NOT use CLOCK_REALTIME, or anything that requires it. Same thing if the server uses daylight savings time instead of UTC. However, a stationary server using UTC may be able to get away with CLOCK_REALTIME for coarse deadlock-avoidance purposes, if necessary. Avoid this unless you are on a pre-2.6 kernel and have no choice, though.
CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW is NOT something you want to use for timestamping. It has not been jitter-corrected yet, etc. It may be appropriate for DACs and ADCs, etc., but is not what you want to use for logging events on human-discernible time scales. We have NTP for a reason.
Hope this is helpful, and I can certainly understand the frustration.
I am planning on creating a Sega Master System emulator over the next few months, as a hobby project in Java (I know it isn't the best language for this but I find it very comfortable to work in, and as a frequent user of both Windows and Linux I thought a cross-platform application would be great). My question regards cycle counting;
I've looked over the source code for another Z80 emulator, and for other emulators as well, and in particular the execute loop intrigues me - when it is called, an int is passed as an argument (let's say 1000 as an example). Now I get that each opcode takes a different number of cycles to execute, and that as these are executed, the number of cycles is decremented from the overall figure. Once the number of cycles remaining is <= 0, the execute loop finishes.
My question is that many of these emulators don't take account of the fact that the last instruction to be executed can push the number of cycles to a negative value - meaning that between execution loops, one may end up with say, 1002 cycles being executed instead of 1000. Is this significant? Some emulators account for this by compensating on the next execute loop and some don't - which approach is best? Allow me to illustrate my question as I'm not particularly good at putting myself across:
public void execute(int numOfCycles)
{ //this is an execution loop method, called with 1000.
while (numOfCycles > 0)
{
instruction = readInstruction();
switch (instruction)
{
case 0x40: dowhatever, then decrement numOfCycles by 5;
break;
//lets say for arguments sake this case is executed when numOfCycles is 3.
}
}
After the end of this particular looping example, numOfCycles would be at -2. This will only ever be a small inaccuracy but does it matter overall in peoples experience? I'd appreciate anyone's insight on this one. I plan to interrupt the CPU after every frame as this seems appropriate, so 1000 cycles is low I know, this is just an example though.
Many thanks,
Phil
most emulators/simulators dealing just with CPU Clock tics
That is fine for games etc ... So you got some timer or what ever and run the simulation of CPU until CPU simulate the duration of the timer. Then it sleeps until next timer interval occurs. This is very easy to simulate. you can decrease the timing error by the approach you are asking about. But as said here for games is this usually unnecessary.
This approach has one significant drawback and that is your code works just a fraction of a real time. If the timer interval (timing granularity) is big enough this can be noticeable even in games. For example you hit a Keyboard Key in time when emulation Sleeps then it is not detected. (keys sometimes dont work). You can remedy this by using smaller timing granularity but that is on some platforms very hard. In that case the timing error can be more "visible" in software generated Sound (at least for those people that can hear it and are not deaf-ish to such things like me).
if you need something more sophisticated
For example if you want to connect real HW to your emulation/simulation then you need to emulate/simulate BUS'es. Also things like floating bus or contention of system is very hard to add to approach #1 (it is doable but with big pain).
If you port the timings and emulation to Machine cycles things got much much easier and suddenly things like contention or HW interrupts, floating BUS'es are solving themselves almost on their own. I ported my ZXSpectrum Z80 emulator to this kind of timing and see the light. Many things get obvious (like errors in Z80 opcode documentation, timings etc). Also the contention got very simple from there (just few lines of code instead of horrible decoding tables almost per instruction type entry). The HW emulation got also pretty easy I added things like FDC controlers AY chips emulations to the Z80 in this way (no hacks it really runs on their original code ... even Floppy formating :)) so no more TAPE Loading hacks and not working for custom loaders like TURBO
To make this work I created my emulation/simulation of Z80 in a way that it uses something like microcode for each instruction. As I very often corrected errors in Z80 instruction set (as there is no single 100% correct doc out there I know of even if some of them claim that they are bug free and complete) I come with a way how to deal with it without painfully reprogramming the emulator.
Each instruction is represented by an entry in a table, with info about timing, operands, functionality... Whole instruction set is a table of all theses entries for all instructions. Then I form a MySQL database for my instruction set. and form similar tables to each instruction set I found. Then painfully compared all of them selecting/repairing what is wrong and what is correct. The result is exported to single text file which is loaded at emulation startup. It sound horrible but In reality it simplifies things a lot even speedup the emulation as the instruction decoding is now just accessing pointers. The instruction set data file example can be found here What's the proper implementation for hardware emulation
Few years back I also published paper on this (sadly institution that holds that conference does not exist anymore so servers are down for good on those old papers luckily I still got a copy) So here image from it that describes the problematics:
a) Full throtlle has no synchronization just raw speed
b) #1 has big gaps causing HW synchronization problems
c) #2 needs to sleep a lot with very small granularity (can be problematic and slow things down) But the instructions are executed very near their real time ...
Red line is the host CPU processing speed (obviously what is above it take a bit more time so it should be cut and inserted before next instruction but it would be hard to draw properly)
Magenta line is the Emulated/Simulated CPU processing speed
alternating green/blue colors represent next instruction
both axises are time
[edit1] more precise image
The one above was hand painted... This one is generated by VCL/C++ program:
generated by these parameters:
const int iset[]={4,6,7,8,10,15,21,23}; // possible timings [T]
const int n=128,m=sizeof(iset)/sizeof(iset[0]); // number of instructions to emulate, size of iset[]
const int Tps_host=25; // max possible simulation speed [T/s]
const int Tps_want=10; // wanted simulation speed [T/s]
const int T_timer=500; // simulation timer period [T]
so host can simulate at 250% of wanted speed and simulation granularity is 500T. Instructions where generated pseudo-randomly...
Was a quite interesting article on Arstechnica talking about console simulation recently, also links to quite a few simulators that might make for quite good research:
Accuracy takes power: one man's 3GHz quest to build a perfect SNES emulator
The relevant bit is that the author mentions, and I am inclined to agree, that most games will appear to function pretty correctly even with timing deviations of +/-20%. The issue you mention looks likely to never really introduce more than a fraction of a percent timing error, which is probably imperceptible whilst playing the final game. The authors probably didn't consider it worth dealing with.
I guess that depends on how accurate you want your emulator to be. I do not think that it has to be that accurate. Think emulation of x86 platform, there are so many variants of processors and each has different execution latencies and issue rates.
I need a very accurate way to time parts of my program. I could use the regular high-resolution clock for this, but that will return wallclock time, which is not what I need: I needthe time spent running only my process.
I distinctly remember seeing a Linux kernel patch that would allow me to time my processes to nanosecond accuracy, except I forgot to bookmark it and I forgot the name of the patch as well :(.
I remember how it works though:
On every context switch, it will read out the value of a high-resolution clock, and add the delta of the last two values to the process time of the running process. This produces a high-resolution accurate view of the process' actual process time.
The regular process time is kept using the regular clock, which is I believe millisecond accurate (1000Hz), which is much too large for my purposes.
Does anyone know what kernel patch I'm talking about? I also remember it was like a word with a letter before or after it -- something like 'rtimer' or something, but I don't remember exactly.
(Other suggestions are welcome too)
The Completely Fair Scheduler suggested suggested by Marko is not what I was looking for, but it looks promising. The problem I have with it is that the calls I can use to get process time are still not returning values that are granular enough.
times() is returning values 21, 22, in milliseconds.
clock() is returning values 21000, 22000, same granularity.
getrusage() is returning values like 210002, 22001 (and somesuch), they look to have a bit better accuracy but the values look conspicuously the same.
So now the problem I'm probably having is that the kernel has the information I need, I just don't know the system call that will return it.
If you are looking for this level of timing resolution, you are probably trying to do some micro-optimization. If that's the case, you should look at PAPI. Not only does it provide both wall-clock and virtual (process only) timing information, it also provides access to CPU event counters, which can be indispensable when you are trying to improve performance.
http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/
See this question for some more info.
Something I've used for such things is gettimeofday(). It provides a structure with seconds and microseconds. Call it before the code, and again after. Then just subtract the two structs using timersub, and you can get the time it took in seconds from the tv_usec field.
If you need very small time units to for (I assume) testing the speed of your software, I would reccomend just running the parts you want to time in a loop millions of times, take the time before and after the loop and calculate the average. A nice side-effect of doing this (apart from not needing to figure out how to use nanoseconds) is that you would get more consistent results because the random overhead caused by the os sceduler will be averaged out.
Of course, unless your program doesn't need to be able to run millions of times in a second, it's probably fast enough if you can't measure a millisecond running time.
I believe CFC (Completely Fair Scheduler) is what you're looking for.
You can use the High Precision Event Timer (HPET) if you have a fairly recent 2.6 kernel. Check out Documentation/hpet.txt on how to use it. This solution is platform dependent though and I believe it is only available on newer x86 systems. HPET has at least a 10MHz timer so it should fit your requirements easily.
I believe several PowerPC implementations from Freescale support a cycle exact instruction counter as well. I used this a number of years ago to profile highly optimized code but I can't remember what it is called. I believe Freescale has a kernel patch you have to apply in order to access it from user space.
http://allmybrain.com/2008/06/10/timing-cc-code-on-linux/
might be of help to you (directly if you are doing it in C/C++, but I hope it will give you pointers even if you're not)... It claims to provide microsecond accuracy, which just passes your criterion. :)
I think I found the kernel patch I was looking for. Posting it here so I don't forget the link:
http://user.it.uu.se/~mikpe/linux/perfctr/
http://sourceforge.net/projects/perfctr/
Edit: It works for my purposes, though not very user-friendly.
try the CPU's timestamp counter? Wikipedia seems to suggest using clock_gettime().