From owner-freebsd-current Thu Sep 21 16:50: 7 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from hand.dotat.at (sfo-gw.covalent.net [207.44.198.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7FA37B424; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:50:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fanf by hand.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.15 #3) id 13cG65-000NVl-00; Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:49:45 +0000 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 23:49:45 +0000 From: Tony Finch To: Warner Losh Cc: Mike Smith , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new idle_proc() makes my laptop very hot Message-ID: <20000921234945.F5948@hand.dotat.at> References: <200009212303.QAA62850@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <200009212310.RAA62949@harmony.village.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <200009212310.RAA62949@harmony.village.org> Organization: Covalent Technologies, Inc Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Warner Losh wrote: >Mike Smith writes: >> >> If I remember from a discussion with John Baldwin, the reason we >> don't do this (yet) is that HLT only wakes up when you take an >> interrupt, and there are cases where we can't guarantee that we'll >> take an interrupt in order to get us out of the HLT. > >I thought that's what the timer interrupts were for... We can't >guarantee that we'll get one? That seems very serious to me. The problem is that one cpu may wich to schedule a process to run on the idle cpu, but it can't because the idle cpu is halted and won't wake up until the next irq. Tony. -- en oeccget g mtcaa f.a.n.finch v spdlkishrhtewe y dot@dotat.at eatp o v eiti i d. fanf@covalent.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message