Date: Sun, 03 Jul 2005 00:38:18 -0000 From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> To: Kevin Oberman <oberman@es.net> Cc: acpi@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: patch: p4tcc and speedstep cpufreq drivers Message-ID: <4227F401.7000204@root.org> In-Reply-To: <20050302235623.BA3925D07@ptavv.es.net> References: <20050302235623.BA3925D07@ptavv.es.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Kevin Oberman wrote: > OK. This makes me feel a bit better, but I still think I'll leave TCC > out of the equation as it makes the various frequency steps vary uneven > to the point that lowering dev.cpu.0.freq would increase performance > (and the reverse, as well) and it causes my system to hang when > throttled back too far. It never hangs with TCC disabled although my > lowest "frequency" is now just 150 MHz. Would you test with hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled="1" instead of disabling p4tcc? I think p4tcc is not the problem, it's the combination of the two. I think there are some problems when both the chipset (externally) and processor (internally) assert STOPCLOCK. If this works for you with no hangs, I'll commit code to disable acpi_throttle when p4tcc is present. p4tcc is more efficient than acpi_throttle since the latter is done through the chipset, giving more chance for race conditions, latency, etc. -- Nate _______________________________________________ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4227F401.7000204>