From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Tue May 31 11:18:29 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8C96106564A; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:18:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBFB78FC18; Tue, 31 May 2011 11:18:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id OAA07910; Tue, 31 May 2011 14:18:27 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: <4DE4CE82.4030301@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 14:18:26 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110504 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jung-uk Kim References: <201105241356.45543.jkim@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <201105241356.45543.jkim@FreeBSD.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling invariant TSC timecounter on SMP X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 11:18:29 -0000 on 24/05/2011 20:56 Jung-uk Kim said the following: > I think it's about time to enable invariant TSC timecounter on SMP by > default. Please see the attached patch. It is also available from > here: > > http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/tsc_smp_test4.diff > > avg convinced me enough that it should be an opt-out feature going > forward. :-) Not sure if I really did that. My position is this: - if we think that TSC is SMP-safe then it should have the best priority - we should do our best to auto-guess if TSC is SMP-safe unless a user explicitly overrides that property (either via explicit testing or by making guesses based on CPU model or etc) > Comments? Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember the "lowres" part of the patch being discussed. -- Andriy Gapon