Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:37:30 +0100 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: A question about timecounters Message-ID: <93251.1012941450@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2002 12:28:49 PST." <200202052028.g15KSna04510@vashon.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200202052028.g15KSna04510@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes: >After 25 minutes testing that with NTIMECOUNTER=50000, I haven't >gotten any microuptime messages. So it appears that my problem was >just that the current timecounter wrapped all the way around the ring >while microuptime was interrupted, due to the high HZ value and the >heavy interrupt load. I'm sorry I didn't try this sooner, when you >suggested it. > >After lunch I'll try NTIMECOUNTER=HZ (10000 in my case). That sounds >like a nice default value to me. Yup, if we preempt things for more than a second we have other problems too I think. My fault for not letting it depend in HZ in the first place. >It would be interesting to see whether this same fix also works in >-current. I'm not sure yet if I can test that here or not. I haven't >tried building my netgraph module under -current yet. Well, either way I will commit the volatile and this NTIMECOUNTER to -current now, it's certainly better than what is there now. Thanks for the help, I owe you one at BSDcon! Poul-Henning Ohh, and btw: do I need to say that I'm dying to know what the heck you are doing with that box ? :-) -- 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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?93251.1012941450>