From owner-freebsd-amd64@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 19 18:25:09 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62D0516A4CE; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:25:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from pooker.samsco.org (pooker.samsco.org [168.103.85.57]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5AF643D1D; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:25:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Received: from [192.168.254.21] (rat.samsco.home [192.168.254.21]) (authenticated bits=0) by pooker.samsco.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3JIREDD083065; Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:27:14 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from scottl@samsco.org) Message-ID: <42654CAA.10809@samsco.org> Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 12:23:38 -0600 From: Scott Long User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD amd64; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20050321 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: obrien@freebsd.org References: <200504131714.20356.jkim@niksun.com> <86fyxt1ovu.fsf@xps.des.no> <20050415005850.GB80903@dragon.NUXI.org> <2fd864e050414180911e4e5be@mail.gmail.com> <20050415211600.GA1473@dragon.NUXI.org> <1113603823.91832.7.camel@cream.xbsd.org> <86ekdbdnqh.fsf@xps.des.no> <4260F103.5050309@mail.uni-mainz.de> <20050419173247.GB26152@dragon.NUXI.org> <42654719.7030607@samsco.org> <20050419181831.GA27679@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <20050419181831.GA27679@dragon.NUXI.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.8 tests=ALL_TRUSTED autolearn=failed version=3.0.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pooker.samsco.org cc: "O. Hartmann" cc: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Recommendations? X-BeenThere: freebsd-amd64@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the AMD64 platform List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 18:25:09 -0000 David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2005 at 11:59:53AM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > >>David O'Brien wrote: >> >>>On Sat, Apr 16, 2005 at 01:03:31PM +0200, O. Hartmann wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I have ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe mobo. BIOS revision is 1006. I have no >>>>problems with >>>>ACPI. APIC works with NO_MIXED_MODE commented out in kernel. >>> >>> >>>Disable the NO_MIXED_MODE option is a performance degradation. >>>Bending over and taking it up the a** across all motherboards (which DES >>>has forced on 5.4-RELEASE); makes the ASUS A8N-SLI Deluxe not "perfectly >>>working". >>> >> >>According to the APIC maintainer, and according to some quick benchmarks >>myself, mixed mode has almost no performance impact. > > > Maybe with the latest code - if you're talking about before the very > recent jhb commits. Peter has said several times there is(was) a > performance issue. 'mixed mode' also is (was?) expressly prohibited by > the ACPI spec. > Mixed mode had a performance impact back in the 5.1 or 5.2 timeframe when the PIC/APIC code wasn't abstracted like it is now. This applies to 5.3 and 5.4. 6.0 will of course be better since the factors that make mixed mode a consideration are now solved a different way. Scott