Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jukka Ruohonen
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 11:18:35AM +, Jared D. McNeill wrote: Module Name: src Committed By: jmcneill Date: Mon Aug 8 11:18:34 UTC 2011 Modified Files: src/sys/arch/x86/x86: tsc.c Log Message: If the USE_PLATFORM_CLOCK flag is set in the FADT, it indicates that OSPM

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jared McNeill
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: We should not really trust ACPI/FADT here. See acpicpu(4) how this is Why? derived from the actual CPU information. Additionally, I suggested decreasing the quality of tsc(9) based on this information a long time ago, but joerg@ had concerns about

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jukka Ruohonen
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 07:40:45AM -0400, Jared McNeill wrote: On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: We should not really trust ACPI/FADT here. See acpicpu(4) how this is Why? Because we (the operating system) know this better than the BIOS writer. And because this flag is not reliable;

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jared McNeill
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: Why? Because we (the operating system) know this better than the BIOS writer. And because this flag is not reliable; numerous systems where tsc(9) is broken miss this flag in my ACPI table collection, and vice versa. This flag is new in ACPI v3.0. If

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jukka Ruohonen
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 07:49:42AM -0400, Jared McNeill wrote: On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: Why? Because we (the operating system) know this better than the BIOS writer. And because this flag is not reliable; numerous systems where tsc(9) is broken miss this flag in my ACPI

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jukka Ruohonen
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 08:16:43AM -0400, Jared McNeill wrote: Newer systems with invariant TSC shouldn't set the USE_PLATFORM_CLOCK flag. But the do, unfortunately. Again, I have several examples from the field. - Jukka.

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jared McNeill
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: Yes, but when possible, we should always prefer actual, reliable, CPU information instead of the BIOS. Note also that at least with Intel CPUs, the TSC should be entirely safe with the current stock-NetBSD (i.e. no automatic CPU power management), but

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Jared McNeill
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 08:16:43AM -0400, Jared McNeill wrote: Newer systems with invariant TSC shouldn't set the USE_PLATFORM_CLOCK flag. But the do, unfortunately. Again, I have several examples from the field. I'd be willing to let

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/amd64/conf

2011-08-08 Thread Adam Hamsik
On Aug,Monday 8 2011, at 6:13 PM, Jonathan A. Kollasch wrote: Module Name: src Committed By: jakllsch Date: Mon Aug 8 16:13:42 UTC 2011 Modified Files: src/sys/arch/amd64/conf: GENERIC INSTALL Log Message: Finish reverting premature modularization of amd64 kernels. I

Re: CVS commit: src/sys/arch/x86/x86

2011-08-08 Thread Thomas Klausner
On Mon, Aug 08, 2011 at 03:03:41PM +0300, Jukka Ruohonen wrote: Note also that at least with Intel CPUs, the TSC should be entirely safe with the current stock-NetBSD (i.e. no automatic CPU power management), but now you've marked it unreliable for many systems (cf. also [1]). Tell that to my

Re: CVS commit: src

2011-08-08 Thread Adam Hoka
On Mon, 8 Aug 2011 22:15:42 + Jared D. McNeill jmcne...@netbsd.org wrote: Module Name: src Committed By: jmcneill Date: Mon Aug 8 22:15:42 UTC 2011 Modified Files: src: Makefile build.sh Log Message: add an installmodules=dir command to build.sh nice! --