Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:04:12 -0500 From: Bosko Milekic <bmilekic@unixdaemons.com> To: Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.com> Cc: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br>, Trish Lynch <trish@bsdunix.net>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Hyperthreading and machdep.cpu_idle_hlt Message-ID: <20030201100412.B11945@unixdaemons.com> In-Reply-To: <200301311952.h0VJqrMB076135@apollo.backplane.com>; from dillon@apollo.backplane.com on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:52:53AM -0800 References: <20030131125804.E1357-100000@femme> <200301311824.h0VIOtmF095380@apollo.backplane.com> <3E3AC33E.9060204@tcoip.com.br> <200301311908.h0VJ8cNZ007396@apollo.backplane.com> <20030131141700.A7526@unixdaemons.com> <200301311952.h0VJqrMB076135@apollo.backplane.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 11:52:53AM -0800, Matthew Dillon wrote: > Another solution would be to have a global mask of 'idle' cpus and send > an IPI to them when a new KSE is scheduled on a non-idle cpu that would > simply serve to wakeup the HLT. IPIs are nasty, but there are large > (power consumption) advantages to standardizing on the HLT methodology. Or, as I explained in my previous post, only HLT the [virtual] CPU if the other [virtual] CPU that is sharing the same execution & cache units is not HLT'd itself. If the other one is HLT'd, then not do the HLT. > -Matt > Matthew Dillon > <dillon@backplane.com> -- Bosko Milekic * bmilekic@unixdaemons.com * bmilekic@FreeBSD.org To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030201100412.B11945>