From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 1 22:04:47 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@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 ESMTP id 8A062C20; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:04:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from citadel.icyb.net.ua (citadel.icyb.net.ua [212.40.38.140]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4984E2807; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 22:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from porto.starpoint.kiev.ua (porto-e.starpoint.kiev.ua [212.40.38.100]) by citadel.icyb.net.ua (8.8.8p3/ICyb-2.3exp) with ESMTP id BAA11670; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:04:44 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from avg@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by porto.starpoint.kiev.ua with esmtp (Exim 4.34 (FreeBSD)) id 1VGFlE-000Irc-3P; Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:04:44 +0300 Message-ID: <5223B9C3.2070508@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:03:47 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130810 Thunderbird/17.0.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Adrian Chadd Subject: Re: 9.2-RC3 - suspend/resume causes slow system performance References: <5222E19C.9040402@FreeBSD.org> <5223B313.9060708@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" , FreeBSD Stable Mailing List , Mike Harding X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 22:04:47 -0000 on 02/09/2013 00:58 Adrian Chadd said the following: > On 1 September 2013 14:35, Andriy Gapon > wrote: > > > Do you have any evidence that there is anybody else besides Mike who has this > problem? > > > > Nope! but we can't assume that users are reporting all the system slowdowns. Why? > And honestly, I've heard enough strange stories on mailing lists and IRC of > things like "during disk IO, blah would be really slow, when I change > timekeeping or halt from ACPI to something else, things get better." So I can't > discount that this is affecting people and they either don't know, or just chalk > it up as "shitty hardware." Strange stories are just that. > Also, I usually try to "sort out" things after there is a clear understanding of > what the problem is and how it should be fixed. > > > Well, the big change is that it's now going into a sleep state on a HT core, right? > > Are you able to go into an ACPI sleep state on a HT logical CPU, rather than the > physical core? Or am I mis-understanding what's going on? Most likely. I do not see how the change is HT-specific or HT-related at all. > > > Reverting and fixing it later seems like the safest option to me. Is there a > > bigger problem that you tried to fix in that patch that wasn't as obvious? > > I do not see any problem with the code*.* I do not see any explanation of the > root cause of the problem that Mike has. I do not see why anything has to be > reverted. Especially because "since we're so close to 9.2-REL". > Just in case, I'll remind that the commit in question is in stable/9 since Dec > 23 2012. > > > Right, but I also know a lot of people who just have stayed with 8.x or > 9.0-RELEASE and haven't bothered upgrading. Again, I can't assume that everyone > has been keeping up to date with stable/9 and providing feedback. I am positive that it's not everyone who uses (up-to-date) stable/9. Still, I believe that a user-base of stable/9 is >> 1. -- Andriy Gapon