Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 17:53:50 +0200 From: "Attilio Rao" <attilio@freebsd.org> To: "Jung-uk Kim" <jkim@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r184108 - head/sys/i386/i386 Message-ID: <3bbf2fe10810220853r34256b59y1fe57f49eca2014@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200810211605.46927.jkim@FreeBSD.org> References: <200810210431.m9L4V7Pb088978@svn.freebsd.org> <3bbf2fe10810210307t664cc8a2s62606f03427286f3@mail.gmail.com> <200810211605.46927.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/10/21, Jung-uk Kim <jkim@freebsd.org>: > On Tuesday 21 October 2008 06:07 am, Attilio Rao wrote: > > Something we could do with this is adding a "quirk" table of TSC > > arch dependant known to be working (based on cpu_model and such) > > and use that table in order to replace tsc_smp. > > Please note the invariant_tsc and smp_tsc are different. If we go > with the route, we need two quirk tables. :-( It doesn't matter. I think it is silly we have different quirks flag states for TSC. We should just having a table assuming that the TSC is safe to use in SMP environments and gets rid of any other flag (in this case, for amd64 based machine, the logic could, for example, check if the CPU is P state invariant and assume it is safe, etc.) Thanks, Attilio -- Peace can only be achieved by understanding - A. Einstein
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3bbf2fe10810220853r34256b59y1fe57f49eca2014>