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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 01 January 2003 10:26 pm, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > http://perforce.freebsd.org/chv.cgi?CH=3D23031 > > Change 23031 by marcel@marcel_nfs on 2003/01/01 14:25:52 > > =09I cannot convince myself that reloading cr.itm with a delta > =09of cr.itm and not a delta of cr.itc without the logic to > =09detect missed interrupts is not going to harm. Revert the > =09change and add a comment. We should really use cr.itm, but > =09we need to check for missed interrupts so that we don't > =09reload with a value that is smaller than the current counter > =09and thus don't get timer interrupts until the 64-bit counter > =09wraps. It doesn't matter much if there is some inaccuracy in the frequency of=20 calls to hardclock since the actual time is read from the timecounter.=20 The HZ poll rate is used for scheduling and similar, not for timing. --=20 Doug Rabson=09=09=09=09Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com =09=09=09=09=09Phone: +44 20 8348 6160 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe p4-projects" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301020947.04412.dfr>