From owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Thu Oct 3 15:57:38 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 957B9139F5F for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:57:38 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from kib.kiev.ua (kib.kiev.ua [IPv6:2001:470:d5e7:1::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46kd1s4rtDz4JlB for ; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 15:57:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) Received: from tom.home (kib@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kib.kiev.ua (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x93FvLTQ009413 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 3 Oct 2019 18:57:24 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 kib.kiev.ua x93FvLTQ009413 Received: (from kostik@localhost) by tom.home (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id x93FvLaa009411; Thu, 3 Oct 2019 18:57:21 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from kostikbel@gmail.com) X-Authentication-Warning: tom.home: kostik set sender to kostikbel@gmail.com using -f Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2019 18:57:21 +0300 From: Konstantin Belousov To: Poul-Henning Kamp Cc: Warner Losh , Sebastian Huber , Bruce Evans , FreeBSD Subject: Re: Why is tc_get_timecount() called two times in tc_init()? Message-ID: <20191003155721.GP44691@kib.kiev.ua> References: <0e27fb3e-0f60-68e1-dbba-f17c3d91c332@embedded-brains.de> <20191002140040.GA44691@kib.kiev.ua> <20191003013314.O2151@besplex.bde.org> <20191002163946.GE44691@kib.kiev.ua> <20191003030837.C2787@besplex.bde.org> <20191003084021.GI44691@kib.kiev.ua> <47834.1570116246@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47834.1570116246@critter.freebsd.dk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED,FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD,FREEMAIL_FROM, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on tom.home X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 46kd1s4rtDz4JlB X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=fail reason="No valid SPF, No valid DKIM" header.from=gmail.com (policy=none); spf=softfail (mx1.freebsd.org: 2001:470:d5e7:1::1 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of kostikbel@gmail.com) smtp.mailfrom=kostikbel@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.00 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-0.999,0]; DMARC_POLICY_SOFTFAIL(0.10)[gmail.com : No valid SPF, No valid DKIM,none]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_FROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; R_SPF_SOFTFAIL(0.00)[~all]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; IP_SCORE_FREEMAIL(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; IP_SCORE(0.00)[ip: (-2.64), ipnet: 2001:470::/32(-4.53), asn: 6939(-3.34), country: US(-0.05)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6939, ipnet:2001:470::/32, country:US]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 15:57:38 -0000 On Thu, Oct 03, 2019 at 03:24:06PM +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > -------- > In message > , Warner Losh writes: > > >I think this is a good fix. I recall phk saying it was more paranoia for > >edge cases than really needed in a private email to me, but it's in the > >'gap' of email that I lost in a disk crash 12 years ago so I can't find it > >for sure. > > I think the original reason for this was (locked) delta-based > timecounters, (ie counters which roll over rapidly) in order that > their first "real" use would not return truly bogus values. So do you think it makes sense to keep the doubled call at init ? Or it did not played out and I should commit my patch.