Date: Wed, 27 Mar 1996 16:31:57 +1100 From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> To: davidg@Root.COM, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kgdb / remote gdb of the kernel? Message-ID: <199603270531.QAA16211@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>> - associated clocks. The i586 cycle counter isn't affected by interrupts >>> being enabled, so it may get way ahead of the (slow) current time. >> >>Why is this abuse of the i586 cycle counter still being used as a >>clock replacement? I thought it was pretty clear after David's visit >>at Intel that we should no longer use it. It is used because it makes microtime() several times faster (650 nsec instead of 2500 nsec on my ASUS P133). It is only used to determine the time since the last i8254 clock interrupt. This isn't abuse. > It was certainly clear to me. It's fundamentally incompatible with APM. It was only clear that we shouldn't depend on it for long-term accuracy. It's no more incompatible with APM the i8254 clock. Both are stop working in low power mode and need to be adjusted when full power is restored. Bruce
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199603270531.QAA16211>