From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 18 10:59:39 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9568416A41C; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:59:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from schweikh@schweikhardt.net) Received: from bremen.shuttle.de (bremen.shuttle.de [194.95.249.251]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BA1343D4C; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:59:38 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from schweikh@schweikhardt.net) Received: by bremen.shuttle.de (Postfix, from userid 10) id BA41B3B980; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:59:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hal9000.schweikhardt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hal9000.schweikhardt.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j5IAxJLG063734; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:59:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from schweikh@hal9000.schweikhardt.net) Received: (from schweikh@localhost) by hal9000.schweikhardt.net (8.13.3/8.13.3/Submit) id j5IAxJYT063733; Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:59:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from schweikh) Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 12:59:18 +0200 From: Jens Schweikhardt To: John Baldwin Message-ID: <20050618105918.GA1551@schweikhardt.net> References: <20050516113420.GA786@schweikhardt.net> <20050526205831.GA958@schweikhardt.net> <20050608190147.GA917@schweikhardt.net> <200506171450.44146.jhb@FreeBSD.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200506171450.44146.jhb@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Timekeeping hosed by factor 3, high lapic[01] interrupt rates X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 10:59:39 -0000 On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 02:50:42PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: ... # Is this the patch you are running with? Yes, with if (1) instead, which we know is the same. # >Index: clock.c # =================================================================== # RCS file: /usr/cvs/src/sys/i386/isa/clock.c,v # retrieving revision 1.220 # diff -u -r1.220 clock.c # --- clock.c 14 May 2005 09:10:01 -0000 1.220 # +++ clock.c 27 May 2005 19:42:54 -0000 # @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ # * clocks, setup the interrupt handler for the 8254 timer 0 so # * that it can drive hardclock(). # */ # - if (!using_lapic_timer) { # + if (!using_lapic_timer || 1) { # intr_add_handler("clk", 0, (driver_intr_t *)clkintr, NULL, # INTR_TYPE_CLK | INTR_FAST, NULL); # i8254_intsrc = intr_lookup_source(0); # # Also, can you get the output of 'sysctl kern.clockrate' for both cases? As reported upthread, it's the same for both cases, $ sysctl -a | grep hz kern.clockrate: { hz = 1000, tick = 1000, profhz = 666, stathz = 133 } debug.psm.hz: 20 See http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2005-May/050210.html for the whole thread. Regards, Jens -- Jens Schweikhardt http://www.schweikhardt.net/ SIGSIG -- signature too long (core dumped)