Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 14:55:21 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Cc: takawata@freeBSD.org, njl@freeBSD.org, current@freeBSD.org Subject: Re: HPET vs other timers Message-ID: <2314.1179759321@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 May 2007 18:37:27 -0400." <20070520223727.GB44666@xor.obsecurity.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20070520223727.GB44666@xor.obsecurity.org>, Kris Kennaway writes: >no LOCK_PROFILING 24559.36 (baseline) >TSC 19627.16 >ACPI-fast 4633.02 >HPET 2917.85 >i8254 panic :( [1] > >i.e. HPET is actually slower than all the other (working ;) >timecounters in this configuration. > >Can you provide some more justification of why HPET has the highest >quality factor and is appropriate to be used as the preferred >timecounter? I can't rememember who raised the quality of it recently, CVS will know. I was sceptical, because I also have systems where HPET is slow. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2314.1179759321>