On Wednesday 22 October 2008 11:53 am, Attilio Rao wrote: > 2008/10/21, Jung-uk Kim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 06:07 am, Attilio Rao wrote: > > > Something we could do with this is adding a "quirk" table of > > > TSC arch dependant known to be working (based on cpu_model and > > > such) and use that table in order to replace tsc_smp. > > > > Please note the invariant_tsc and smp_tsc are different. If we > > go with the route, we need two quirk tables. :-( > > It doesn't matter. > I think it is silly we have different quirks flag states for TSC. > We should just having a table assuming that the TSC is safe to use > in SMP environments and gets rid of any other flag (in this case, > for amd64 based machine, the logic could, for example, check if the > CPU is P state invariant and assume it is safe, etc.)
Yes, it does matter as TSC is not just for timecounter and it can be used independently. For example, if a thread is bound to a CPU, it can provide the fastest AND safest timer. Besides, the whole point was not to modify TSC freq. if it is independent from CPU freq. Jung-uk Kim _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
