Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:59:41 +0200
From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>
To: rizzo@iet.unipi.it
Cc: Davide Italiano <davide@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-arch@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: regarding r242905 ('us' argument to some callout functions) was Re: [RFC/RFT] calloutng
Message-ID: <50CF79AD.9040600@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi. > I wonder why the choice is to use (actually, call) the value > "microseconds" rather use a bintime or something scaled and with a > well defined resolution. It was kind of engineering choice. I've chosen microseconds, following values used by ACPI to represent CPU sleep states exit latencies. Now that is the only usage for that value. If CPUs so much reduce wakeup latencies to make this scale too coarse, this type will be the smallest of our optimization tasks. On the other side, I have some doubts that we will be able to reach supported 2048 seconds limit on the integer side. Now even completely empty idle system has about 30 interrupts per second, that is far from 0.0005. From the other side, I don't know any system where CPUs have 2048 seconds wakeup latency. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50CF79AD.9040600>