Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 07:12:51 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: Garrett Wollman <wollman@csail.mit.edu>, Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu>, net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for performance evaluation: net.isr.direct (fwd) Message-ID: <35063.1129353171@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:20:26 %2B1000." <20051015084425.C1403@epsplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20051015084425.C1403@epsplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: >On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >> Even to this day new CPU chips come out where TSC has flaws that >> prevent it from being used as timecounter, and we do not have (NDA) >> access to the data that would allow us to build a list of safe >> hardware. > >Um, I have already pointed out that NDAs are not necessary. > >They (and staic lists) are also not sufficient. [...] Which is why I am totally set against using the TSC on SMP machines and only grudingly accept it for UP machines that do not have ACPI counters. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?35063.1129353171>