On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Vitja Makarov <vitja.maka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Vitja Makarov <vitja.maka...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> 2013/8/23 Davide Italiano <dav...@freebsd.org>: >>> >>> I think that for socket's timeouts it's ok to have a HZ-precision. It >>> would be much more important to implement high-precision timeouts for >>> select() and friends, if it's not done yet (sorry I'm running 9.1). >>> >> >> JFYI, select()/usleep()/etc... are all fine grained right now in HEAD. >> > > That's cool! Does that mean that FreeBSD 10 would be a tickless system? > > -- > vitja.
FreeBSD will have a tickless callout(9) subsystem. There are still some kernel subsystems that depends on hardclock() even if the long term goal is that of moving away from it (when/if possible). A notable example is SCHED_ULE code which depends on hardclock() (sched_tick()) but it could be optimized to skip some calls even though CPU is active. -- Davide "There are no solved problems; there are only problems that are more or less solved" -- Henri Poincare _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
