From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 7 18:44:22 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 731FB106564A; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:44:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from seanbru@yahoo-inc.com) Received: from mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com [98.139.253.104]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 204238FC1D; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 18:44:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (rideseveral.corp.yahoo.com [10.73.160.231]) by mrout1-b.corp.bf1.yahoo.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/y.out) with ESMTP id q77IhImi027522; Tue, 7 Aug 2012 11:43:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=yahoo-inc.com; s=cobra; t=1344364999; bh=p+8ScgOe8NRhqsB4iE4U8G+eGUiZFXZCbOi+rSOSOW0=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Date: Message-ID:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=C38ru8/JO7DsQs8MV/f/890+NQHtV2Zj2Ev/vy59pNXv2FdsvtMcd94HqBV46bJxG VV4pLtMQWEqRKQLtrmH4x/ORest8GEk8OIQWxmNzCf5BuW6BvJ6zqPdejm5L/599cl VhUGGEYZaIWORgNuaY6SUd9yX6UKyanQ+N3vf0h8= From: Sean Bruno To: John Baldwin In-Reply-To: <1343751187.2957.4.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> References: <1342730963.2656.5.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <201207300807.20225.jhb@freebsd.org> <1343751187.2957.4.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 11:43:17 -0700 Message-ID: <1344364997.18854.9.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.1 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Milter-Version: master.31+4-gbc07cd5+ X-CLX-ID: 364998002 Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: Time to increase MAX_TASKS? X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: ACPI and power management development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 18:44:22 -0000 On Tue, 2012-07-31 at 09:13 -0700, Sean Bruno wrote: > On Mon, 2012-07-30 at 05:07 -0700, John Baldwin wrote: > > > I am currently running with a value of 128 and doing a bit of > > testing. > > > > I think it should be something like MAX(32, MAXCPU). > > Ah, that sounds WAY more reasonable. I shall test thusly. > > Sean > This did *not* work on a dual socket machine with MAXCPU at 64. Amusing. sean