This clarifies that the single, global `ticks' is owned by kern_clock.c.
timeout(9) is only one of users of `ticks', even though its handler,
timeout_hardclock_update(), is called from hardclock() after update of
`ticks' every time.
Theoretically timecounter(9)'s tick, tc_ticktock(), is independent of
the value of `ticks'. Then it must be safe to update `ticks' first then
tick timecounter(9). I leave this order as is for now.
Index: sys/kern/kern_clock.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_clock.c,v
retrieving revision 1.88
diff -u -p -r1.88 kern_clock.c
--- sys/kern/kern_clock.c 11 Jun 2015 16:03:04 -0000 1.88
+++ sys/kern/kern_clock.c 16 Mar 2016 04:30:42 -0000
@@ -191,6 +191,7 @@ hardclock(struct clockframe *frame)
return;
tc_ticktock();
+ ticks++;
/*
* Update real-time timeout queue.
Index: sys/kern/kern_timeout.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/kern_timeout.c,v
retrieving revision 1.43
diff -u -p -r1.43 kern_timeout.c
--- sys/kern/kern_timeout.c 20 Jul 2015 23:47:20 -0000 1.43
+++ sys/kern/kern_timeout.c 16 Mar 2016 04:30:42 -0000
@@ -304,8 +304,6 @@ timeout_hardclock_update(void)
mtx_enter(&timeout_mutex);
- ticks++;
-
MOVEBUCKET(0, ticks);
if (MASKWHEEL(0, ticks) == 0) {
MOVEBUCKET(1, ticks);
