HPET vs other timers
Poul-Henning Kamp
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Mon May 21 14:55:08 UTC 2007
In message <20070520223727.GB44666 at xor.obsecurity.org>, Kris Kennaway writes:
>no LOCK_PROFILING 24559.36 (baseline)
>TSC 19627.16
>ACPI-fast 4633.02
>HPET 2917.85
>i8254 panic :( [1]
>
>i.e. HPET is actually slower than all the other (working ;)
>timecounters in this configuration.
>
>Can you provide some more justification of why HPET has the highest
>quality factor and is appropriate to be used as the preferred
>timecounter?
I can't rememember who raised the quality of it recently, CVS will
know. I was sceptical, because I also have systems where HPET
is slow.
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
More information about the freebsd-current
mailing list