We came to this conclusion several posts ago :) It felt irrelevant to me what timecounter h/w / driver I was using - as stated repeated times, after reporting about this I was -just curious- on what changed from 4.1 to 4.2, and that has been perfectly elaborated already by Otto Moerbeek and yourself. What's interesting, though, is that the P3/600 and the Sempron/1.9 machines - again, both running 4.2-stable/i386 - both use the i8254 h/w + driver:
kern.timecounter.tick=1 kern.timecounter.timestepwarnings=0 kern.timecounter.hardware=i8254 kern.timecounter.choice=i8254(0) dummy(-1000000) For your pleasure, dmesg for the Sempron-machine is here: http://pastebin.com/m4fce6b00 What you want to make of this is up to you. I am -perfectly- satisfied with the explanation that was given earlier in the thread. The C2D machines running in the park at work are out of my reach for many days ahead, as is the P3/600, so I can't please you with any dmesg's of those for now. -SD On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2008-03-15, Jonathan Thornburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Apart from these nits... my results on a Thinkpad T41p (i386 Pentium M) > > running 4.2-stable are (test program compiled with gcc 4.2.0, -g -O2): > > ... with 'apm -H' in effect (clock speed 1.7GHz): 2.92 seconds > > ... with 'apm -L' in effect (clock speed 0.6GHz): 3.98 seconds > > I think this proves that the hardware and/or driver for the > timecounters most people are testing this with are quicker to read > than whatever the original poster is using (but doesn't want to > tell us what it is - I don't understand why someone goes to the > trouble of providing a test program but won't include the > always-requested dmesg, but there you go). > > There are (if I counted correctly) 11 possibilities for timecounter > on i386 (though not all in the same machine :-) - note that the > kern.timecounter.hardware sysctl is /not/ read-only ...
