From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 26 14:33:14 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BE51065679 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:33:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39D278FC23 for ; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:33:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Received: from odyssey.starpoint.kiev.ua (alpha-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.101]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id QAA27886; Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:33:09 +0200 (EET) (envelope-from avg@icyb.net.ua) Message-ID: <49CB9224.6010509@icyb.net.ua> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:33:08 +0200 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090323) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bruce Cran References: <200903200030.n2K0U3iG011009@freefall.freebsd.org> <20090325223914.4387eeae@gluon.draftnet> <49CB8C86.4020800@icyb.net.ua> <20090326142832.0dba187a@gluon.draftnet> In-Reply-To: <20090326142832.0dba187a@gluon.draftnet> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.7 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kern/108581: [sysctl] sysctl: hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest: Invalid argument X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:33:15 -0000 on 26/03/2009 16:28 Bruce Cran said the following: > On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 16:09:10 +0200 > Andriy Gapon wrote: >> If you specifically mean the generic case (non-cst) as you mention in >> the PR, then I think that you didn't notice that cpu_cx_count (the >> global variable) gets updated in acpi_cpu_generic_cx_probe, So after >> looping over all CPUs it has the value of the maximum Cx level >> supported by at least one CPU. Only then we loop again and determine >> the smallest of the supported maximums. > > Yes, I had missed that. I think the problem however is still that in > the generic cx case the global is re-initialized to 0 and never gets > updated. It would be interesting to catch where/when this happens if this is indeed the case. -- Andriy Gapon