Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:03:09 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r209900 - head/sys/kern Message-ID: <201007121003.09749.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <4C3B0F63.6000905@FreeBSD.org> References: <201007111647.o6BGlk0O033551@svn.freebsd.org> <201007120813.19223.jhb@freebsd.org> <4C3B0F63.6000905@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, July 12, 2010 8:49:39 am Alexander Motin wrote: > John Baldwin wrote: > > On Sunday, July 11, 2010 12:47:46 pm Alexander Motin wrote: > >> Author: mav > >> Date: Sun Jul 11 16:47:45 2010 > >> New Revision: 209900 > >> URL: http://svn.freebsd.org/changeset/base/209900 > >> > >> Log: > >> Remove interval validation from cpu_tick_calibrate(). As I found, check > >> was needed at preliminary version of the patch, where number of CPU ticks > >> was divided strictly on 16 seconds. Final code instead uses real interval > >> duration, so precise interval should not be important. Same time aliasing > >> issues around second boundary causes false positives, periodically logging > >> useless "t_delta ... too long/short" messages when HZ set below 256. > > > > Hmm, did you ask phk@ about this? > > Yes. He agreed that code should be reconsidered. Ah, ok. I didn't recall any replies on the list. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201007121003.09749.jhb>