Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:11:08 +0100 (CET) From: Remy Nonnenmacher <remy@synx.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Fwd: Idle loop in SMP. Message-ID: <199912121411.PAA39511@gw0.boostworks.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Forwarded to -current, due to lack of audience in -smp. Sorry for
bothering you).
------ Forwarded message ------
From: Remy Nonnenmacher <remy@synx.com>
Subject: Idle loop in SMP.
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:43:40 +0100 (CET)
To: smp@freebsd.org
Reply-To: remy@synx.com
While investigating a temperature problem, I seen that the default_halt
entry called for an idle processor do not really halt the processor. I
found the reason on the CVS logs and it is intended to react to changes
made on the run queue by the other processor. (i386/i386/swtch.s, 1.61).
Since this is dated Sept 97, can we expect a better solution regarding
the progress made in the SMP area ?
Thanks to all.
RN.
IaM
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912121411.PAA39511>