From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Dec  6 19:29:20 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52FC2106566C;
	Mon,  6 Dec 2010 19:29:20 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 14:27:36 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <4CF92852.20705@freebsd.org> <201012061401.17904.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
	<4CFD34E1.40008@freebsd.org>
In-Reply-To: <4CFD34E1.40008@freebsd.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201012061429.08085.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: non-invariant tsc and cputicker
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 19:29:20 -0000

On Monday 06 December 2010 02:09 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 06/12/2010 21:01 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> > :-) Don't get me wrong, I generally agree with you *iff* it does
> > : not
> >
> > hurt too much.  Anyway, this issue should be resolved from the
> > root, i.e., kern_resouce.c, if possible.
>
> But what to resolve there?

Better algorithm for stat.

> I just want to always have a stable source "cpu ticks", and then
> everything else should just work?

If we had one, yes.  But we don't, at least for old x86 hardware. :-(

> BTW, if someone comes up with a patch for more or less correct
> accounting when "cpu ticks" frequency is allowed to change, then I
> am all for it. But, IMO, it's just easier to use stable "cpu
> ticks".

If it doesn't hurt too much, yes.  Remember the P-state invariant CPUs 
are pretty new.  SMP-correct TSC is quite rare if there is any.

Jung-uk Kim