On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 17:36, Mike Belopuhov wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Ted Unangst <[email protected]> wrote: >> The acpihpet timer is, in my testing, lots better than the acpitimer. >> Faster to read and more precise. They should not have the same quality >> value. Double acpihpet. >> > > as long as acpi subsystem attaches acpitimer earlier we don't > need that since acpihpet always prevails.
Oops, I rewrote my previous reply and left out one part. There is still a user presentation issue. When I run sysctl kern.timecounter, I don't want to see acpitimer and acpihpet listed with the same quality. acpihpet will always have a higher frequency, so it will always be picked, but users should not have to do digging through the source of tc_init to discover why.
