Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 08:18:52 -0400 From: Steve McCoy <smccoy@greatbaysoftware.com> To: Eric van Gyzen <eric@vangyzen.net> Cc: Charles Owens <cowens@greatbaysoftware.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mfi(4) IO performance regression, post 8.1 Message-ID: <50094CAC.5030907@greatbaysoftware.com> In-Reply-To: <500815D7.4030407@vangyzen.net> References: <4FDABA0B.5030702@greatbaysoftware.com> <4FFF34BA.9030002@greatbaysoftware.com> <4FFF9A50.40006@greatbaysoftware.com> <201207130939.54311.jhb@freebsd.org> <5005CD83.306@greatbaysoftware.com> <500815D7.4030407@vangyzen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 7/19/12 10:12 AM, Eric van Gyzen wrote: > > You might simply try a different idle function. See these sysctls: > > machdep.idle: acpi > machdep.idle_available: spin, mwait, mwait_hlt, hlt, acpi, > > Eric I've tried your suggestion (with mwait) and the problem went away. Thanks a lot! This seems like a good workaround, but I am worried about whether it could negatively affect something that I don't know about which also depends on this sysctl. If you have any ideas on other areas I could test, I'd greatly appreciate the info. Thanks again!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?50094CAC.5030907>