From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sat May 26 07:02:39 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE940106566C; Sat, 26 May 2012 07:02:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lists@yamagi.org) Received: from mail.yamagi.org (unknown [IPv6:2a01:4f8:121:2102:1::7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9E48FC0A; Sat, 26 May 2012 07:02:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from maka.home.yamagi.org (p4FD17C58.dip.t-dialin.net [79.209.124.88]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.yamagi.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 70A091666334; Sat, 26 May 2012 09:02:36 +0200 (CEST) Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 09:02:33 +0200 From: Yamagi Burmeister To: jkim@FreeBSD.org Message-Id: <20120526090233.f638c1d2.lists@yamagi.org> In-Reply-To: <4FBFE624.1020208@FreeBSD.org> References: <1337319129.2915.4.camel@powernoodle-l7> <4FB6765A.2050307@FreeBSD.org> <1337710214.2916.8.camel@powernoodle-l7.corp.yahoo.com> <20120525163653.b61a08e2.lists@yamagi.org> <4FBFA9A9.7020806@FreeBSD.org> <4FBFBD39.7000105@FreeBSD.org> <4FBFDFFB.9020501@FreeBSD.org> <4FBFE624.1020208@FreeBSD.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.4 (GTK+ 2.24.6; amd64-portbld-freebsd8.3) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="PGP-SHA1"; boundary="Signature=_Sat__26_May_2012_09_02_33_+0200_mBo1t4d7+SWB5n2B" Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, seanbru@yahoo-inc.com, avg@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [stable 9] broken hwpstate calls X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 May 2012 07:02:39 -0000 --Signature=_Sat__26_May_2012_09_02_33_+0200_mBo1t4d7+SWB5n2B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 25 May 2012 16:05:56 -0400 Jung-uk Kim wrote: > > if we decide so, then I think that we could still keep the things > > "simple". As we currently use the "wholesale" approach (all CPUs > > are set to the same P-state regardless of topology), then we could > > first make a pass of writing the MSR on all processors with a new > > P-state value and then make another pass of checking via MSR > > C001_0063 that the P-state is acquired. >=20 > No, I believe checking MSRC001_0071[18:16] is much simpler if it > works. And it does not break current cpufreq(4) design principles. Okay, thank's for your input. I'll come up with a patch. But it won't happen until tuesday or wednesday next week. --=20 Homepage: www.yamagi.org XMPP: yamagi@yamagi.org GnuPG/GPG: 0xEFBCCBCB --Signature=_Sat__26_May_2012_09_02_33_+0200_mBo1t4d7+SWB5n2B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAk/AgA4ACgkQWTjlg++8y8uiVQCgupXRyS7u8iCjTdllMhSgDU1W vb4AoLdEkedgj9V6x+K9P/0HoSRXGFLU =keUc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature=_Sat__26_May_2012_09_02_33_+0200_mBo1t4d7+SWB5n2B--