Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-21 Thread Brandon Gooch
On Mon, Jun 21, 2010 at 12:33 AM, Alexander Motin wrote: > Brandon Gooch wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >>> On 06/20/10 08:47, Alexander Motin wrote: While this can be done in sysctl.conf, it would be better to do it in loader.conf to make it applied from

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-20 Thread Alexander Motin
Brandon Gooch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote: >> On 06/20/10 08:47, Alexander Motin wrote: >>> While this can be done in sysctl.conf, it would be better to do it in >>> loader.conf to make it applied from the beginning, without on-the-fly >>> timers change. >> You're p

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-20 Thread Brandon Gooch
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > On 06/20/10 08:47, Alexander Motin wrote: >> >> While this can be done in sysctl.conf, it would be better to do it in >> loader.conf to make it applied from the beginning, without on-the-fly >> timers change. > > You're probably right that for

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-20 Thread Doug Barton
On 06/20/10 08:47, Alexander Motin wrote: While this can be done in sysctl.conf, it would be better to do it in loader.conf to make it applied from the beginning, without on-the-fly timers change. You're probably right that for something this fundamental it's better to do it in loader.conf, ho

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-20 Thread Alexander Motin
Brandon Gooch wrote: > On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Alexander Motin wrote: > In by /boot/loader.conf, I now have: > > # Power Saving > kern.hz="100" > #hint.apic.0.clock="0" > #hint.atrtc.0.clock="0" > hint.p4tcc.0.disabled="1" > hint.p4tcc.1.disabled="1" > hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled="1" >

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-20 Thread Brandon Gooch
On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Alexander Motin wrote: > Brandon Gooch wrote: >> I've been testing these patches since the first iteration >> (et.20100606), and I haven't discovered any related issues. > > Thank you! > >> I am unclear about the number of interrupts I should expect from the >> hpe

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-19 Thread Alexander Motin
Brandon Gooch wrote: > I've been testing these patches since the first iteration > (et.20100606), and I haven't discovered any related issues. Thank you! > I am unclear about the number of interrupts I should expect from the > hpet0 device (compared to the 99 from the rtc at 100Hz), so here is >

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-10 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: <4c0e5646.1060...@freebsd.org> Alexander Motin writes: : Brandon Gooch wrote: : > Alexander, do you feel that the code is at a stage where meaningful : > user testing can occur? : : I think yes. I've touched a lot of legacy code, so it would be nice to : know what I may ha

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-08 Thread Alexander Motin
Brandon Gooch wrote: > I'm giving http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/et.20100607.patch a go right now... > > After patching and recompiling the kernel, I'm up and running. > > What information/feedback would you like to see from us users? As always: what is working and especially what is not. What t

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-08 Thread Brandon Gooch
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:40 AM, Alexander Motin wrote: > Brandon Gooch wrote: >> Alexander, do you feel that the code is at a stage where meaningful >> user testing can occur? > > I think yes. I've touched a lot of legacy code, so it would be nice to > know what I may have broken. For example, i82

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-08 Thread Alexander Motin
Brandon Gooch wrote: > Alexander, do you feel that the code is at a stage where meaningful > user testing can occur? I think yes. I've touched a lot of legacy code, so it would be nice to know what I may have broken. For example, i8254 and RTC drivers now more dependent on attaching to PnP/ACPI re

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-08 Thread Brandon Gooch
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:24 AM, Tsuyoshi Ozawa wrote: > 2010/6/6, Alexander Motin : >> Hi. >> >> Most of x86 systems now has at least 4 types of event timers: i8254, >> RTC, LAPIC and HPET. Respective code in kernel is very tangled, heavily >> hardcoded and absolutely not scalable. I have reimple

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-08 Thread Tsuyoshi Ozawa
2010/6/6, Alexander Motin : > Hi. > > Most of x86 systems now has at least 4 types of event timers: i8254, > RTC, LAPIC and HPET. Respective code in kernel is very tangled, heavily > hardcoded and absolutely not scalable. I have reimplemented it, trying > to solve these issues. > > I did such thing

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-07 Thread Ed Schouten
Hi Alexander, * Alexander Motin wrote: > Ed Schouten wrote: > > Just out of curiosity, how does this work relate to things like having a > > tickless kernel? > > It is almost mandatory prerequisite. We can't do any fancy timer stuff > without unified timer API. Tsuyoshi Ozawa in his Dynamic Tick

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-07 Thread Alexander Motin
Ed Schouten wrote: > * Alexander Motin wrote: >> Most of x86 systems now has at least 4 types of event timers: i8254, >> RTC, LAPIC and HPET. Respective code in kernel is very tangled, heavily >> hardcoded and absolutely not scalable. I have reimplemented it, trying >> to solve these issues. > >

Re: RFC: New event timers infrastructure

2010-06-07 Thread Ed Schouten
Hi Alexander, * Alexander Motin wrote: > Most of x86 systems now has at least 4 types of event timers: i8254, > RTC, LAPIC and HPET. Respective code in kernel is very tangled, heavily > hardcoded and absolutely not scalable. I have reimplemented it, trying > to solve these issues. Just out of cu