Date: Thu, 2 Jan 2003 09:47:04 +0000 From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@freebsd.org>, Perforce Change Reviews <perforce@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: PERFORCE change 23031 for review Message-ID: <200301020947.04412.dfr@nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <200301012226.h01MQHEa035401@repoman.freebsd.org> References: <200301012226.h01MQHEa035401@repoman.freebsd.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Wednesday 01 January 2003 10:26 pm, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=23031 > > Change 23031 by marcel@marcel_nfs on 2003/01/01 14:25:52 > > I cannot convince myself that reloading cr.itm with a delta > of cr.itm and not a delta of cr.itc without the logic to > detect missed interrupts is not going to harm. Revert the > change and add a comment. We should really use cr.itm, but > we need to check for missed interrupts so that we don't > reload with a value that is smaller than the current counter > and thus don't get timer interrupts until the 64-bit counter > wraps. It doesn't matter much if there is some inaccuracy in the frequency of calls to hardclock since the actual time is read from the timecounter. The HZ poll rate is used for scheduling and similar, not for timing. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Phone: +44 20 8348 6160 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the messagehelp
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301020947.04412.dfr>