Date: Thu, 26 Sep 1996 20:21:12 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Michael Smith <msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Cc: durian@plutotech.com (Mike Durian), freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Special Cycles on the PCI bus Message-ID: <199609270221.UAA18954@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199609270131.LAA17240@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> References: <199609262306.RAA12457@pluto.plutotech.com> <199609270131.LAA17240@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > Now that I've located the problem, does anyone have any suggestions > > on what I can do to avoid using the "hlt" command. Is there something > > else the idle_loop can do while waiting for interrupts? > > Er. If your system has an APM BIOS, you could enable APM and use the > "Idle CPU" function, but it wouldn't surprise me if that used "hlt" > as well. It might, but then again it might not. In any case, we call 'hlt' if the APM bios isnt' enabled but the APM code is used. > I don't know if there's any way other than using "hlt" to > wait until the next interrupt - you could perhaps spin waiting on the > interrupt statistics counter(s)... You could ignore 'hlt', but it uses up more power. A machine that doesn't use 'hlt' gets significantly hotter than a machine that does. It's not really necessary though. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199609270221.UAA18954>