From owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep  1 23:13:16 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 596CF8F0;
 Sun,  1 Sep 2013 23:13:16 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from mvharding@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22a.google.com (mail-wg0-x22a.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22a])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 673D52BC1;
 Sun,  1 Sep 2013 23:13:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id c11so1236342wgh.1
 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 01 Sep 2013 16:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
 :cc:content-type;
 bh=tlSW+JdT/E5H9P5CaLXK50Q6dqSTE19VjOYwNyanDFk=;
 b=PHzbjgBUeRIs6MXrgKtUMeJcepFwzTA66U+mrHP6S07UeNtvoVXdcKJ6yZ6XjhYsUX
 IYXeu4ynNYB9fccUj3dw0Fr2UOpgj12I5ZnFU/a5JWgvtpqEQIQF5nrP3N5i9zbSIsql
 HGd1MltKwCtLpeNlzRlJ5ctx5Sabhd8DwMSxGSyjcmIP/aIYkryUins3IFDGuifWsrM0
 iXfXuE89hGo4ocvtcyfMrTi+egVMwLCEf0jnn7sPH8GfX6AuaO1mLOvkmwf2ZHlqssDW
 fwaDZUxGmNO5rIbKuJg76l979eqD0qy4kLjPCT4JWXe959kiiTZJG0D521K8JojDmBN3
 mF6Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.178.166 with SMTP id cz6mr35207wjc.53.1378077193737;
 Sun, 01 Sep 2013 16:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.217.67.69 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 16:13:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=+WPXLDCpMu-i1MrjEtn4mA04kDx96C2t0-xPvC-cP9w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CALRn2n_2tUc0vPCFpgmAjYRm1=7KB5sA3A+xQqcc=ye-S1-0LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-Vmom970ZBLPLWWTomkKtX1w-Fi3cj5qva1_ODcx22nqEXfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALRn2n9G1+BS8KVUc_RFZj-snM3FVJvsEEcnWqv-GF82=CqS6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-VmomWMhQNU1w0eWdwrKYz2fuZ5xZimgxQWUEkPqaQcgYkjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALRn2n_e2Uu4Y2aHUSP=6_aQDPeCk_OkrCxiFWaD0BxmbgP4-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-VmokesYVnYJUnNgULKwL-wqb_-SqqYi=3KUSCGbHNVgOOUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5222E19C.9040402@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAJ-VmokHyXaxZTb-3Bpp19Go+sW=ms0Zh0WAMB7sD1JSX6HdUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5223B313.9060708@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAJ-VmomweLyjXnBHjp=Nrs3P4n7UNF1bCV_N41RYJQqGLpg9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5223B9C3.2070508@FreeBSD.org>
 <CAJ-Vmo=+WPXLDCpMu-i1MrjEtn4mA04kDx96C2t0-xPvC-cP9w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 16:13:13 -0700
Message-ID: <CALRn2n-7e4pvto-7jeYKL-CMgDNmCWJM=vq4vyo9ZV1QRdgTpA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 9.2-RC3 - suspend/resume causes slow system performance
From: Mike Harding <mvharding@gmail.com>
To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>,
 FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>,
 Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: ACPI and power management development <freebsd-acpi.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-acpi>,
 <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-acpi>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi>,
 <mailto:freebsd-acpi-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 23:13:16 -0000

This would be a 'strange story' if I had not tracked this down.  The disk
works, only much slower
than normal.  I only noticed it because I was doing a buildworld.  There is
no crash, no dmesg,
no console logs.

I'll ask again, why change that line?  Did you feel that the original
author of the code had made a
mistake?  The code in question is from Oct. 2005.  Also why move the check
for the HT in front
of the check for the disabled idle?

The only change that affects my system is that idle is enabled in a code
path that should only
be run when idle is disabled.  I don't know the larger context but I also
don't know why the code
was changed.  It looks like the intent of the code has been changed ("don't
suspend if this
flag is set") and I don't know what benefit this provides.  The code path
seems to only be
run during startup, shutdown and wake from sleep.

Contact me via email and I'll set up remote access.  This is a personal
machine so this is a bit
awkward.