From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Sun May 4 04:08:27 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: hackers@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 ESMTPS id B1C30AA5; Sun, 4 May 2014 04:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-x230.google.com (mail-qg0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3BB9D18DF; Sun, 4 May 2014 04:08:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id i50so4971031qgf.21 for ; Sat, 03 May 2014 21:08:26 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=p0kNDIrfyU4fpSSXVTdOzh53zC4U6JBFRJuP0YKgRYs=; b=biufB8VG5BgpbNDT09NqK33WQdSwi0IKpSx0klkrYbhnZIWDj6rluv6tqgKEzNuQlU gRTw8hVj223mdZIN4P3dPVhjBbTyKkckm0Vn8HmKp9brZgjulAJMzt8wR4UQz5f48TE0 uHVSLhzY9uSkrLgghkJmdGlJ6g6JZsmbksx5i3sqA4skdeexNTvRIUBAMMf/ECAXLzCC hOeIPMUOx6H6KRAWWoB0Sz/Bk7ops80L96Rd1/s3h+fMSM2Xdkd7fUXBomFpGnH6a7e2 l3sAInTdd+JvXvKrRrkvNp2MhykonxFsMN4sLPPbeZn9Xkc/SQXFvlyCWVwVIjFtNPUV j+BQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.224.67.131 with SMTP id r3mr34752071qai.75.1399176505925; Sat, 03 May 2014 21:08:25 -0700 (PDT) Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com Received: by 10.224.191.201 with HTTP; Sat, 3 May 2014 21:08:25 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <536592D1.7080403@freebsd.org> References: <3F7430D7-3C0F-43E1-8EBD-8AA4F701497C@FreeBSD.org> <20140503155745.GA2457@La-Habana> <20140503192305.GA1847@La-Habana> <536592D1.7080403@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 21:08:25 -0700 X-Google-Sender-Auth: Yy6AE0V0tOCLax-dxNJLeP0JoCg Message-ID: Subject: Re: Leaving the Desktop Market From: Adrian Chadd To: Nathan Whitehorn Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "current@freebsd.org" , Eitan Adler , Matthias Apitz , David Chisnall , Kevin Oberman , "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" , Jordan Hubbard X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 04 May 2014 04:08:27 -0000 TCC is fine. TCC for doing anything other than _thermal throttling_ these days isn't. I've been kind of trying hard to avoid touching it as I'm worried it'll stick to me, but something tells me i'm just going to have to bite the bullet and grab ownership of this stuff... :( -a On 3 May 2014 18:07, Nathan Whitehorn wrote: > On 05/03/14 16:59, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> >> On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 1:25 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote: >> >>> Set it to the lowest available Cx state that you see in dev.cpu.0 . >>> >>> >> Available is not required. Set it to C8. That guarantees that you will use >> the lowest available. The correct incantation in rc.conf is "Cmax". >> performance_cx_lowest="Cmax" >> economy_cx_lowest="Cmax" >> >> But, unless you want laggy performance, you will probably also want: >> hint.p4tcc.0.disabled=1 >> hint.acpi_throttle.0.disabled=1 >> in /boot/loader.conf. Low Cx states and TCC/throttling simply don't mix >> well and TCC is not effective, as mentioned earlier in this thread. > > > Is there any reason that TCC is on by default, actually? It seems like an > anti-feature. > -Nathan