From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Sep 6 05:44:18 1996 Return-Path: owner-hackers Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id FAA29165 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 05:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from labinfo.iet.unipi.it (labinfo.iet.unipi.it [131.114.9.5]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id FAA29160 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 05:44:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (luigi@localhost) by labinfo.iet.unipi.it (8.6.5/8.6.5) id OAA00692 for hackers@freebsd.org; Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:14:13 +0200 From: Luigi Rizzo Message-Id: <199609061214.OAA00692@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Subject: Faster kern.clockrate ? To: hackers@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 6 Sep 1996 14:14:12 +0200 (MET DST) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi, for my dummynet stuff, I would like to have a finer clock granularity than the default 10ms: 1ms would probably be ok. There shouldn't be so much overhead (after all, I started using FreeBSD on a 386/25, and now I have a Pentium100!). I have been thinking of changing the value of hz (assumed I can find there it is initialized), but there are so many lines of code with hz == 100 100 / hz hz / 100 which makes me think that this is a bit dangerous. Otherwise, I thought I could initialize the timer (timer0, I guess) so as to interrupt faster, and then manage to call hardclock() every 10ms. Still, has anyone already done something similar ? And, what are the implications of this approach with other timers ? Thanks Luigi