From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 7 21:33:05 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DF821065670; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:33:05 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E68C38FC0A; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 21:33:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (unknown [209.249.190.124]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36895B949; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:33:04 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Sean Bruno Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2012 17:30:52 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/8.2-CBSD-20110714-p17; KDE/4.5.5; amd64; ; ) References: <1342730963.2656.5.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <1343751187.2957.4.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <1344364997.18854.9.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <1344364997.18854.9.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201208071730.52899.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.7 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 07 Aug 2012 17:33:04 -0400 (EDT) Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Time to increase MAX_TASKS? 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: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 21:33:05 -0000 On Tuesday, August 07, 2012 2:43:17 pm Sean Bruno wrote: > On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:13 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 05:07 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > > > I am currently running with a value of 128 and doing a bit of > > > testing. > > > > > > I think it should be something like MAX(32, MAXCPU). > > > > Ah, that sounds WAY more reasonable. I shall test thusly. > > > > Sean > > > > This did *not* work on a dual socket machine with MAXCPU at 64. Hmm, can you find out how many tasks it wanted? I know part of it is a function of the number of CPUs (we queue a task for each CPU at one point before tasks are running). -- John Baldwin