Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003 21:35:51 +0200 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: des@ofug.org (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: weird fxp / timecounter interaction in top-of-tree Message-ID: <29407.1049657751@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 06 Apr 2003 21:16:55 %2B0200." <xzpsmsvl9lk.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <xzpsmsvl9lk.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>, Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8 rgrav?= writes: >"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> writes: >> Defining "best" is at best hard, so I have resorted to the simple >> technique we use now: Don't call tc_init on a timecounter unless >> you want to use it. > >Huh? I added a Debugger() call to tc_init(), and can assure you that >it gets called for every timecounter in the system (in my case i8254, >PIIX, TSC and ACPI, not necessarily in that order). But they they happen, by no coincidence, to be called in exactly the right order to result in the best safe choice in current circumstances :-) -- 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?29407.1049657751>