Dave, While I would agree with you in general, we don't have any real idea what the Windows code is doing whether or not it is a uniprocessor or multiprocessor. I very much doubt that they duplicated your work though I would think that it's very important for the CPU's to keep each other in close synch in order for threading to work properly. I can say that at least with threading they have gotten it right and done a better job than almost every other O/S that I know. I doubt that they could do that if the CPU's were not properly synchronized.
Danny David L. Mills wrote: > David, > > The multiple-CPU nanokernel code that left here and is in the Alpha > kernel assumes each CPU has an individual cycle counter and the timer > interupts are vectored to a designated CPU. There is a data structure > associated with each CPU that holds the measured current cycle counter > scaling and offset, which is updated once each second by interprocessor > interrrupt. A call to read the system clock lands on a j-random CPU, > which reads the global time maintained by timer interrupts and > interpolates according to the current CPU values. > > I don't know if Vista attempts to provide granularity within the tick; > but if it does, I would expect it to use a similar strategy. > > Dave _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
