John Baldwin wrote:
On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:27:42 pm Garrett Cooper wrote:
I'm seeing similar results.
[r...@orangebox /usr/home/gcooper]# dmesg | grep 'Timecounter "'
Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
Timecounter "ACPI-fast" frequency 3579545 Hz quality 1000
Timecounter "HP
On Thu, 30 Apr 2009 08:46:41 -0400
John Baldwin wrote:
> On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:27:42 pm Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > Why's the default ACPI-fast? For power-saving functionality or
> > because of the `quality' factor? What is the criteria that
> > determines the `quality' of a clock as what's b
On Sunday 26 April 2009 10:27:42 pm Garrett Cooper wrote:
> I'm seeing similar results.
>
> [r...@orangebox /usr/home/gcooper]# dmesg | grep 'Timecounter "'
> Timecounter "i8254" frequency 1193182 Hz quality 0
> Timecounter "ACPI-fast" frequency 3579545 Hz quality 1000
> Timecounter "HPET" frequen
On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Pieter de Goeje wrote:
> Dear hackers,
>
> While fiddling with the sysctl kern.timecounter.hardware, I found out that on
> my system HPET is significantly faster than ACPI-fast. Using the program
> below I measured the number of clock_gettime() calls the system can
Dear hackers,
While fiddling with the sysctl kern.timecounter.hardware, I found out that on
my system HPET is significantly faster than ACPI-fast. Using the program
below I measured the number of clock_gettime() calls the system can execute
per second. I ran the program 10 times for each config
