Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000 20:11:33 +0200 From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> To: Alan Clegg <abc@firehouse.net> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Patch to allow TSC with APM Message-ID: <17397.956081493@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 18 Apr 2000 14:07:00 EDT." <20000418140700.A23152@ecto.greenpeas.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <20000418140700.A23152@ecto.greenpeas.org>, Alan Clegg writes: >Out of the ether, Poul-Henning Kamp spewed forth the following bitstream: > >> >> I'd like to recommend the following patches. Adding the option >> >> "CLK_USE_TSC_ANYWAY" allows my laptop to use the TSC even though it >> >> is "flakey". This option should not be set by default. >> > >> >I saw the same kind of patches and my laptop has this w/o any problems >> >for long time. >> >I'd like to commit submitted patch 2 or 3 days later if no objections. > >> It would be nice to have some kind of understanding why the tsc is >> better than the i8254 before we kludge it... > >Any ideas on what would be needed to go forward with that? If the offset is systematic, maybe we should do more to calibrate the i8254 against the RTC, say a 10 second period instead of just one sec (can be done in the back-ground). If it is because the bios fiddles the frequency all the time we should maybe understand the APM bios better. If it is because SMI interrupts "steal" time from us, then the TSC is maybe better. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD coreteam member | 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?17397.956081493>