Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:47:34 +1100 (EST) From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: David Malone <dwmalone@maths.tcd.ie> Cc: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, jhb@FreeBSD.ORG, jake@FreeBSD.ORG, Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> Subject: Re: Interesting backtrace... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103191442510.33513-100000@besplex.bde.org> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103191051110.32350-100000@besplex.bde.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Bruce Evans wrote:
> K6-2's aren't really i586's and i586_bzero should never be used for
> them (generic bzero is faster), but there is apparently another
> bug that may cause them to be used. From des's dmesg output:
>
> > i586_bzero() bandwidth = -1980152482 bytes/sec
> ^
> > bzero() bandwidth = 129299198 bytes/sec
>
> i586_bzero gets used because negative bandwidths are significantly
^^^^^^^^^ oops, I meant "should not get used"
> smaller than positive ones, so plain bzero is faster according to this
> message, but whatever the overflow apparently causes other bad things.
The overflow is actually only in the error message. It is caused by
a preposterous value for `usec'.
> npx.c already has one "fix" for the overflow problem. The problem
> is may be that clocks don't work early any more.
It must be that microtime() doesn't work early any more.
Bruce
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0103191442510.33513-100000>