Date: Sat, 31 Aug 2013 10:35:20 -0700 From: Mike Harding <mvharding@gmail.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 9.2-RC3 - suspend/resume causes slow system performance Message-ID: <CALRn2n_e2Uu4Y2aHUSP=6_aQDPeCk_OkrCxiFWaD0BxmbgP4-A@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomWMhQNU1w0eWdwrKYz2fuZ5xZimgxQWUEkPqaQcgYkjw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALRn2n_2tUc0vPCFpgmAjYRm1=7KB5sA3A%2BxQqcc=ye-S1-0LA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmom970ZBLPLWWTomkKtX1w-Fi3cj5qva1_ODcx22nqEXfA@mail.gmail.com> <CALRn2n9G1%2BBS8KVUc_RFZj-snM3FVJvsEEcnWqv-GF82=CqS6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-VmomWMhQNU1w0eWdwrKYz2fuZ5xZimgxQWUEkPqaQcgYkjw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I've tracked this down to a single line, details in http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=181632. Basically, the code is now doing a 'sti, hlt' vs. a 'sti' in some code that is only supposed to run if idle is disabled. Given that 'hlt' is the idle instruction, this doesn't seem right. On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 11:50 PM, Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> wrote: > On 29 August 2013 23:46, Mike Harding <mvharding@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I was able to track this down by building kernels against /base/stable/9 >> (it took >> -hours!-). >> > > Wow, thanks! > > >> The issue does occur with commit 244616, but does not occur with 244614. >> The >> only difference is a small patch to /usr/src/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c - >> this >> code appears to do with c-state processing. I'll note it in the ticket, >> but somebody >> might want to look at this ASAP >> > > That's awesome. It's a very small ACPI patch. Let's see if the others who > are having this issue can test this out and report back! > > Thanks! > > > > -adrian > >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CALRn2n_e2Uu4Y2aHUSP=6_aQDPeCk_OkrCxiFWaD0BxmbgP4-A>