On Wednesday 22 October 2008 02:29 pm, Jung-uk Kim wrote: > 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
and the CPU has P-state invariant TSC, > 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]"
