It was there... when I added the code to calibrate the
delay loops originally and added the DELAY
macro, it printed out the callibration factor..
(DELAY was originally a spin loop)
It wasn't called 'BOGOMIPS...'
On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Nate Williams wrote:
> > There was such a thing in 386BSD and FreeBSD1.0
>
> I remember no such thing doing a 'bogomips' to compare against Linux.
> Certainly not in 386BSD.
>
>
>
> Nate
>
> >
> > I certainly thing it was a worth-while thing.
> > I'd try make the loop as similar to the Linux one so that they are
> > comparable.
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Nick Sayer wrote:
> >
> > > Linux generates a meric of CPU performance as a byproduct of calibrating
> > > a delay loop.
> > > We don't require doing any such thing, and so adding it would be purely
> > > cosmetic.
> > > However, I allege that cosmetic things aren't in and of themselves evil,
> > > so long as
> > > they don't break anything in the process.
> > >
> > > I would like to generate a number that will hopefully be reasonably
> > > compatible with
> > > the one Linux spits out. The best method I have come up with is to have
> > > a similar
> > > (the same?) count down loop in assembler. Have it count down from
> > > 1,000,000 and
> > > see how much nanotime() has gone by. NANSPERSEC/nansused = bogomips.
> > > A 1 bogomips machine will take an extra second to do this (anything
> > > likely to be
> > > even able to run FreeBSD should exceed 1 BM - yes, ha ha), and a kBM CPU
> > >
> > > can do it in 1 ms. Perhaps in the future a prescaler might be required,
> > > but
> > > this whole thing is just really chrome anyway.
> > >
> > > Would anyone scream and projectile-vomit if I added this to identcpu.c?
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
> >
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
