From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Oct 28 14:09:35 1995
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) id OAA27173
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 14:09:35 -0700
Received: from gvr.win.tue.nl (root@gvr.win.tue.nl [131.155.210.19])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.6.12/8.6.6) with ESMTP id OAA27162
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 14:09:29 -0700
Received: by gvr.win.tue.nl (8.6.10/1.53)
    id WAA24986; Sat, 28 Oct 1995 22:09:12 +0100
From: guido@gvr.win.tue.nl (Guido van Rooij)
Message-Id: <199510282109.WAA24986@gvr.win.tue.nl>
Subject: Re: clk interrupts > 150/sec???
To: se@zpr.uni-koeln.de (Stefan Esser)
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 22:09:11 +0100 (MET)
Cc: hackers@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <199510240932.AA20734@Sysiphos> from "Stefan Esser" at Oct 24, 95 10:32:34 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 364       
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> } I always thought clk0 should have a rate of 100/sec.
> 
> Well, you got PCI devices in your system ?
> 
> Don't ask for details :-)
> 
> Just substract 100 from clk0 to find out 
> the accumulated rate of PCI interrupts ...

I do. Indeed that seems to explain things. 
Shouldn't this be corrected somehow? I cant believe this is without
consequences.?

-Guido