From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jan 23 16:20:55 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30BB23E2; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:20:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com) Received: from mail-wi0-f182.google.com (mail-wi0-f182.google.com [209.85.212.182]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D08BE3F; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:20:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wi0-f182.google.com with SMTP id hn14so882459wib.15 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:53 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=BfXU5Wv8zGIoIcbRqpyfqjqu+JywYvrVillbCXrWakM=; b=GQKpRgIxjRsIy7CsjrDR4rW3l+/tNYOqYD9o8qLvERwVJz5ld4Mcx9DKMYqHx7UaAl /VUoveb2vV2vTpuAjqlzw1W93PaD7Y2CDZS1kqL4TBV5IxGBeU0tuxoFE6TBfjYlqHG/ UMxY6kypfugRqy/qC8IeIX8N8yiLUXk/mT0GQsvtNyL5xKfYCR+fbnUHp/UZyHT74v+i CXEKV3ujx54bZWsSmCXvRUZTh0wfrW9+oary7OaNEsFSExqIgMldYankFuq2oL6qEoI4 CTXNy81l57V842qdM4iFuhg4zWg8oCOzTpl+4SP9mE5yBD23Ui0CiuKd+iWmHX2YuD+m FmoQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.57.82 with SMTP id g18mr3717021wjq.25.1358958053226; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:53 -0800 (PST) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.216.67.6 with HTTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:52 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <50FFFA8B.4040008@FreeBSD.org> References: <1358780588.32417.414.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <1358783667.32417.434.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <50FFFA8B.4040008@FreeBSD.org> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:20:52 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: H2DewRrq-2pH-iaBxfJ6QpDuKjc Message-ID: Subject: Re: time issues and ZFS From: Adrian Chadd To: Andriy Gapon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Ian Lepore X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:20:55 -0000 On 23 January 2013 06:58, Andriy Gapon wrote: > I don't think that this is true of x86 hardware in general. > You might have hit some limitation or a quirk or a bug or an erratum for some > particular hardware. > > E.g. a chipset on this machine has a bit described as such: > "Set to 1 to skip the C state transition if there is break event > when entering C state." > The bit is set indeed and as far as I can tell the behavior matches the description. > > Most modern (non-embedded) machines seem to behave this way. Attempt to enter a > deeper C state while a break event is pending still incurs some overhead, but it's > not as bad as waiting for the next break event. I'll reverify the behaviour on my netbooks when I'm back home. It may be a quirk of an older 9.x, which is fixed in -HEAD. It may be a quirk of the older generation celeron hardware - in which case, we need to tell the user somehow.. Adrian