Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 05 Feb 2002 19:58:35 +0100
From:      Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk>
To:        John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com>
Cc:        hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: A question about timecounters 
Message-ID:  <91801.1012935515@critter.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 05 Feb 2002 10:51:37 PST." <200202051851.g15IpbU04184@vashon.polstra.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <200202051851.g15IpbU04184@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes:
>In article <91477.1012934678@critter.freebsd.dk>,
>Poul-Henning Kamp  <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> wrote:
>> In message <200202051830.g15IUq004143@vashon.polstra.com>, John Polstra writes:
>> >In article <200202051826.g15IQDt04095@vashon.polstra.com>,
>> >John Polstra  <jdp@polstra.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Another interesting thing is that the jumps are always 7.7x seconds
>> >back -- usually 7.79 seconds.  This is even true with more data points
>> >from two different machines.
>> 
>> Yes, I noticed, but didn't dare draw conclusions based on two data points.
>
>It's pretty consistent -- always 7.7somthing.
>
>> This points to an arithmetic overflow (ie: point 3 in my previous email)
>
>Yes, I think you're onto something now.  It's a 550 MHz. machine, so
>the TSC increments every 1.82 nsec.  And 1.82 nsec * 2^32 is 7.81
>seconds. :-)

In that case I'm almost willing to put an AnchorSteam on microuptime()
being interrupted for more than good is in which case the splhigh() should
cure it.

-- 
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-hackers" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?91801.1012935515>