In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Andrew Gallatin writes: > >Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > > The solution is not faster but less reliable timekeeping, the > > solution is to move the scheduler(s) away from using time as an > > approximation of cpu cycles. > >So you mean rather than use binuptime() in mi_switch(), use some >per-cpu cycle counter (like rdtsc)?
yes. >Heck, why not just use ticks for the scheduler and keep the expensive >timekeeping code out of the critical path altogether? Does it really >need better than 1ms resolution? Because the resource accounting needs to know how much cpu power each process/thread has used, and the units used assume a constant clockrate (see times(3)) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
