In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Polstra writes: >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > like, "If X is never locked out for longer than Y, this problem >> > cannot happen." I'm looking for definitions of X and Y. X might be >> > hardclock() or softclock() or non-interrupt kernel processing. Y >> > would be some measure of time, probably a function of HZ and/or the >> > timecounter frequency. >> >> X is hardclock I think, since hardclock() calls tc_windup(). > >That makes sense, but on the other hand hardclock seems unlikely to be >delayed by much. The only thing that can block hardclock is another >hardclock, an splclock, or an splhigh. And, maybe, splstatclock. I'm >talking about -stable here, which is where I'm doing my experiments.
Try swapping so you use the RTC for hardclock & statclock. Let the i8254 run with 65536 divisor and do only timecounter service. That would be a very interresting experiment. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
