Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:14:09 -0700 From: Sean Bruno <seanbru@yahoo-inc.com> To: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "sbruno@freebsd.org" <sbruno@FreeBSD.org>, "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: [CFT] Sparse Cstate Support -- Its possible, that I don't know what I'm doing. Message-ID: <1340208849.2858.2.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <4FE158FF.5070209@FreeBSD.org> References: <1340121728.5203.8.camel@powernoodle> <4FE0EA24.6000906@FreeBSD.org> <1340142162.3201.12.camel@powernoodle.corp.yahoo.com> <4FE158FF.5070209@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2012-06-19 at 22:00 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote: > > I do not think that this is a real problem. A cosmetic one - most > likely. > >> > > Yes, most likely. Except that the code seems to think that the > index of > > the Cstates is good enough for a comparison to value. More over, > the > > sysctl's accept a value like "C3" and manipulate that into an index > into > > the Cstate array without checking for the Cstate value. > > > > The impact of this patch corrects this cosmetic display issue. > > If you accept that there are "FreeBSD C-states" and everything is done > in terms > of them, then there is no problem. > I once wrote this trivial patch to see more information about > FreeBSD-reported > C-states: > https://gitorious.org/~avg/freebsd/avgbsd/commit/043e9b0da5b46d389971e0166789fbee8a4e8622?format=patch Since this patch changes the output of the sysctl format, I disagree with it. I also, disagree with the idea of "FreeBSD C-states" as that is not the intention of the code. The code, from my read, is trying to interpret C-states as though they are always defined sequentially and non-sparse. I am still of the opinion that my patch is correct at this point. Sean
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1340208849.2858.2.camel>