Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2002 12:03:42 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Mark Murray <mark@grondar.za>, FreeBSD current users <current@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: A riddle in -current Message-ID: <16204.1031997822@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 14 Sep 2002 02:46:55 PDT." <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209140244340.82711-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.BSF.4.21.0209140244340.82711-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>, Ju lian Elischer writes: >the only difference I've found so far is teh following differnce in the >dmesg output: >21,22c21 >< Timecounter "ACPI-safe" frequency 3579545 Hz >< unknown: I/O range not supported >--- >> Timecounter "ACPI-fast" frequency 3579545 Hz You can test the difference this makes by timing for (i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) gettimeofday(&tv, NULL) ACPI-safe means that the hardware doesn't act like a properly implemented binary counter (!) whereas ACPI-fast has not given any signs of having trouble during the boot-time probing. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@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. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?16204.1031997822>