Hello. Is there a reason you need a frequency that high? Will HZ=1000 be sufficient and does that reduce the boot time? Also,while I don't entirely understand all the timing mechanisms inside NetBSD, it seems if you do need a higher frequency clock, I'd suggest HZ=10000, since it's a factor of 100 times the default, rather than an odd 80 times the default. -thanks -Brian
On May 25, 9:44am, Mouse wrote: } Subject: Re: 9.1: boot-time delay? } Last week, I wrote, here, of a delay when booting 9.1 } } >>> [ 3.288539] uhub2: 4 ports with 4 removable, self powered } >>> [ 3.288539] uhub3: 6 ports with 6 removable, self powered } >>> [ 25.272567] wd0 at atabus0 drive 0 } >>> [ 25.273568] wd0: <ST500DM002-1BD142> } } and, in a later mail, } } > [A]s soon as I sent my mail and started looking at subsetting diffs, } > I discovered the diffs between the installer kernel and the } > operational kernel were far smaller than I remembered (and mostly } > irrelevant): } } It looks as though this, of all things, is the relevant line: } } > +options HZ=8000 } } My first reaction is that something somewhere is delaying by a fixed } number of ticks rather than doing arithmetic with hz, but that would } make the difference go in the other direction. I'm having trouble } coming up with a plausible scenario that would explain the delay } getting _longer_ with HZ=8000. The most plausible thing I've thought } of is that some delay is being computed based on hz and then getting } treated as milliseconds instead of ticks or some such and getting } multiplied by hz again. } } Anyone have any thoughts on possible ways to track this one down? I'm } going to be doing what I can, but any thoughts anyone has would be } welcomed; I am only minimally familiar with 9.1's kernel internals. } } /~\ The ASCII Mouse } \ / Ribbon Campaign } X Against HTML [email protected] } / \ Email! 7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B >-- End of excerpt from Mouse
