On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 02:56:54PM +0000, Miod Vallat wrote: > > Do those machines not have Coprocessor 0? If they do, why would you > > prefer glxclk over CP0? > > cop0 only provides one timer, from which both the scheduling clock and > statclk are derived. glxclk allows two timers to be used, and thus can > provide a more reliable statclk (see the Torek paper, etc - it is even > mentioned in the glxclk manual page).
Other platforms (architectures?) (powerpc, powerpc64, arm64, riscv64) multiplex their singular interrupt clock to schedule both a fixed-period hardclock and a pseudorandom statclock. This is the direction I intend to take every platform, mips64 included, after the next release. In that context, would there be any reason to prefer glxclk to CP0.count?
