Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 00:05:18 +0100 From: Benjamin Lutz <mail@maxlor.com> To: Simon Barner <barner@freebsd.org> Cc: Matus Harvan <mharvan@inf.ethz.ch>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: powerd adaptive mode latching Message-ID: <200711090005.21842.mail@maxlor.com> In-Reply-To: <20071108224313.GA1927@dose.local.invalid> References: <472E9D0B.5080409@csub.edu> <47334C71.1010102@nortel.com> <20071108224313.GA1927@dose.local.invalid>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart3315018.dH3f6CITOK Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Thursday 08 November 2007 23:43:13 Simon Barner wrote: > > > Please see kern/114722. The patch from the PR works fine with my > > > T61 (T7300). > > > > > > Funny enough, I contacted re@ to get this into 7.0 only two > > > minutes ago. > > > > > > For the archives, the similar bug described in bin/117375 already > > > seems to be adressed in RELENG_7. > > > > both pr's are open .. and > > > > releng_7 and head are both at v 1.26 of acpi_perf.c > > > > so, no it's not fixed, *anywhere*. :) > > It's true that both PRs are still open, but: > > 1) kern/114722 should fix your problem (CPUFREQ_CMP takes care of > almost identical frequencies). Have you already had a chance to > verify that? > > 2) bin/117375 talks about exactly identical frequencies, which should > be handled by acpi_perf.c (1.26, line 303-306). However, the reporter > (Cc'ed) of that PR runs FreeBSD 6.2-p8 which already contains the > removal of duplicate entries (MFC from acpi_perf.c 1.24). > > @Benjamin Lutz: Could you please check if the problem still > exists, and if so, whether the patch from kern/114722 fixes it? Before patch (still on 6.2-RELEASE-p8): dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2100/15000 2100/13720 1890/11360 1050/5531 So yes, the problem still exists. After patch: dev.cpu.0.freq_levels: 2100/15000 2100/13720 1890/11360 1050/5531 And it seems the patch doesn't fix it. Btw, looking at that part (the for loop around line 303) of acpi_perf.c=20 in isolation, it just occurred to me that the check for duplicate=20 entries fails if the duplicate entries are the last in the list, which=20 would probably prevent powerd from scaling the CPU back up. Or maybe=20 I'm wrong, I haven't really looked at the rest of the code. Thanks for working on this! Cheers Benjamin --nextPart3315018.dH3f6CITOK Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBHM5YuzZEjpyKHuQwRAqfDAJ4s1tx0KGvjcjKEdOI8nv9RFo9bowCfeW2F YztcXXUWi0bPIUj7UYHB6/g= =juXD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3315018.dH3f6CITOK--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200711090005.21842.mail>