From owner-freebsd-arch Fri Nov 17 11:55:26 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Received: from pike.osd.bsdi.com (pike.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.222]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA7437B479 for ; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:55:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (john@jhb-laptop.osd.bsdi.com [204.216.28.241]) by pike.osd.bsdi.com (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id eAHJr9B99788; Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:53:09 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.4.0 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <26014.974490789@critter> Date: Fri, 17 Nov 2000 11:53:50 -0800 (PST) From: John Baldwin To: Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: new monotime() call for all architectures. Cc: arch@FreeBSD.org, mark@grondar.za, John Hay Sender: owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 17-Nov-00 Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >>> Ok, I just thought the "mono" in his function name is for monotonic. If >>> you are staying on one processor it will work, but if the timestamps >>> have scheduling inbetween the timestamps and you land on a different >>> processor it won't be monotonic anymore. >> >>It's close enough. :) > > If it isn't dealing properly with async PCC/TSC counters on SMP machines > it shouldn't be called "monoanyting". > > I guess I totally object to the name now :-) It will be increasing at least. :) (except for occasional cases when you get events close together on 2 CPU's that are within the drift between teh CPU's and in the right order to result in the later event coming "earlier"). -- John Baldwin -- http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ PGP Key: http://www.baldwin.cx/~john/pgpkey.asc "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-arch" in the body of the message