Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 21:38:47 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@freebsd.org> To: Sebastian Huber <sebastian.huber@embedded-brains.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problem with timecounters and memory model Message-ID: <86243.1432935527@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: <1056382604.51315.1432925656612.JavaMail.zimbra@embedded-brains.de> References: <55686300.3080100@embedded-brains.de> <85086.1432906578@critter.freebsd.dk> <55686C0F.9000101@embedded-brains.de> <85121.1432906871@critter.freebsd.dk> <55686D31.1060408@embedded-brains.de> <85619.1432920847@critter.freebsd.dk> <1056382604.51315.1432925656612.JavaMail.zimbra@embedded-brains.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-------- In message <1056382604.51315.1432925656612.JavaMail.zimbra@embedded-brains= .de>, Sebastian Huber writes: >> If you only have one timehand, I can't see how it can work without >> locks ? > >In RTEMS we have two build time configurations: uni-processor and SMP. That makes sense. Please note that the default value of 10 timehands was a totally random number I pulled out of thin air. The number should be chosen on how long time a thread can expect to be preempted in kernel-mode, and since I suspect RTEMS to give quite different guarantees than FreeBSD/UNIX, you may want to think about that. -- = 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?86243.1432935527>