In message <20070520223727.GB44666_at_xor.obsecurity.org>, Kris Kennaway writes: >no LOCK_PROFILING 24559.36 (baseline) >TSC 19627.16 >ACPI-fast 4633.02 >HPET 2917.85 >i8254 panic :( [1] > >i.e. HPET is actually slower than all the other (working ;) >timecounters in this configuration. > >Can you provide some more justification of why HPET has the highest >quality factor and is appropriate to be used as the preferred >timecounter? I can't rememember who raised the quality of it recently, CVS will know. I was sceptical, because I also have systems where HPET is slow. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk_at_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.Received on Mon May 21 2007 - 12:55:08 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:10 UTC