on 22/03/2012 18:13 Volodymyr Kostyrko said the following: > Andriy Gapon wrote: >> on 22/03/2012 17:33 Volodymyr Kostyrko said the following: >>> Andriy Gapon wrote: >>>> on 22/03/2012 15:19 Mike Tkachuk said the following: >>>>> kern.eventtimer.periodic: 0 >>>> >>>> It might make sense to try 1 here. >>>> Also you could attempt to involve mav@ directly - here is an author of the >>>> code >>>> and an expert on it. >>> >>> Better ask before setting as this doubles hpet0 (with HPET) or cpu0:timer >>> (with >>> LAPIC) interrupt rate for me. >> >> Does it make your system unusable? >> Are you comparing with pre-eventtimers version of FreeBSD? > > In short term - no. Haven't tested it thoroughly. Results are the same (double > interrupt rate according to `systat 1 -v`) for: > * i386 and amd64 9-STABLE; > * amd64 9.0.
No comment. > As everything related to timing/freq/acpi can be unpredictive I wouldn't > recommend > this to anyone. I own at least two Intel CPU's failing somewhere near > timing/apic > when loading cpufreq and enabling powerd. > What exactly you wouldn't recommend? Let's not introduce unrelated topics and vague uncertainties. Setting kern.eventtimer.periodic to 1 makes eventtimer subsystem to behave less efficiently but more similar to the pre-eventtimer code. So this is #1 suggestion when people run into some new problems with eventtimers. Which is what this thread is about. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
