From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 1 21:36:21 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB63F410; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 21:36:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A53CD26CA; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 21:36:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id AAA11313; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:36:12 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1VGFJc-000Ip7-EG; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:36:12 +0300 Message-ID: <5223B313.9060708@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 00:35:15 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130810 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: 9.2-RC3 - suspend/resume causes slow system performance References: <5222E19C.9040402@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Mike Harding 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: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 21:36:21 -0000 on 01/09/2013 23:40 Adrian Chadd said the following: > On 31 August 2013 23:41, Andriy Gapon > > wrote: > > > > > I've tracked this down to a single line, details in > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=181632. Basically, the code is > > now doing a 'sti, hlt' vs. a 'sti' in some code that is only supposed > to run > > if idle is disabled. Given that 'hlt' is the idle instruction, this > doesn't > > seem right. > > > > > > Wow, nice! > > > > Avg - can we get this fixed? Or just revert this! > > Thank you for trying to be helpful. But let's not jump to conclusions. > BTW, I am following up on the problem in the PR. > > > Sure, I'd like to know why it's behaving badly. But since we're so close to > 9.2-REL, do you think you can get it sorted out and bug-free on all the existing > platforms that people are using 9.2 on (including server, desktop and laptop) > without reverting it? Do you have any evidence that there is anybody else besides Mike who has this problem? Also, I usually try to "sort out" things after there is a clear understanding of what the problem is and how it should be fixed. > Reverting and fixing it later seems like the safest option to me. Is there a > bigger problem that you tried to fix in that patch that wasn't as obvious? I do not see any problem with the code*.* I do not see any explanation of the root cause of the problem that Mike has. I do not see why anything has to be reverted. Especially because "since we're so close to 9.2-REL". Just in case, I'll remind that the commit in question is in stable/9 since Dec 23 2012. -- Andriy Gapon