On Mar 27, 2011, at 10:29 PM, Julian Elischer wrote:
> On 3/27/11 3:32 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Jing Huang wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Thanks for you all sincerely. Under your guidance, I read the
>>> specification of TSC in Intel Manual and learned the hardware feat
On 3/27/11 3:32 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Jing Huang wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for you all sincerely. Under your guidance, I read the
specification of TSC in Intel Manual and learned the hardware feature
of TSC:
Processor families increment the time-stamp counter differently
On 3/27/2011 5:32 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Jing Huang wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for you all sincerely. Under your guidance, I read the
specification of TSC in Intel Manual and learned the hardware feature
of TSC:
Processor families increment the time-stamp counter different
On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:43 AM, Jing Huang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for you all sincerely. Under your guidance, I read the
> specification of TSC in Intel Manual and learned the hardware feature
> of TSC:
>
> Processor families increment the time-stamp counter differently:
> • For Pentium M proce
On 3/25/11 1:24 AM, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2011-Mar-24 17:00:02 +0800, Jing Huang wrote:
In this scenario, I plan to use both tsc and shared memory to
calculate precise time in user mode. The shared memory includes
system_time, tsc_system_time and factor_tsc-system_time.
This sounds l
On Mar 26, 2011, at 8:12 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2011 08:16:46 am Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> On 2011-Mar-25 08:18:38 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> For modern Intel CPUs you can just assume that the TSCs are in sync across
>>> packages. They also have invariant TSC's meanin
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:12:32AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2011 08:16:46 am Peter Jeremy wrote:
> > On 2011-Mar-25 08:18:38 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> > >For modern Intel CPUs you can just assume that the TSCs are in sync across
> > >packages. They also have invarian
Hi,
Thanks for you all sincerely. Under your guidance, I read the
specification of TSC in Intel Manual and learned the hardware feature
of TSC:
Processor families increment the time-stamp counter differently:
• For Pentium M processors (family [06H], models [09H, 0DH]); for Pentium 4
processo
On Saturday, March 26, 2011 08:16:46 am Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Mar-25 08:18:38 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >For modern Intel CPUs you can just assume that the TSCs are in sync across
> >packages. They also have invariant TSC's meaning that the frequency
> >doesn't change.
>
> Synchronise
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:16:46PM +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-Mar-25 08:18:38 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
> >For modern Intel CPUs you can just assume that the TSCs are in sync across
> >packages. They also have invariant TSC's meaning that the frequency doesn't
> >change.
>
> Synchro
On 2011-Mar-25 08:18:38 -0400, John Baldwin wrote:
>For modern Intel CPUs you can just assume that the TSCs are in sync across
>packages. They also have invariant TSC's meaning that the frequency doesn't
>change.
Synchronised P-state invariant TSCs vastly simplify the problem but
not everyone
On Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:34:35 am Jing Huang wrote:
> Hi,
>
>Thanks for your replay. That is just my self-introduction:) I want
> to borrow the shared memory idea from KVM, I am not want to port a
> whole KVM:) But for this project, there are some basic problems.
>
> As I know, tsc
On 2011-Mar-24 17:00:02 +0800, Jing Huang wrote:
> In this scenario, I plan to use both tsc and shared memory to
>calculate precise time in user mode. The shared memory includes
>system_time, tsc_system_time and factor_tsc-system_time.
This sounds like a reasonable approach to me. Note t
13 matches
Mail list logo
