Date: Sun, 30 Apr 2000 15:21:57 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz <kpielorz@tdx.co.uk> To: djb@ifa.au.dk Cc: Steve Passe <smp@csn.net>, smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: hlt instructions and temperature issues Message-ID: <390C4185.5C07088A@tdx.co.uk> References: <200004300350.VAA13194@Ilsa.StevesCafe.com> <20000430122943.A52481@relativity.student.utwente.nl> <20000430152339.A453@relativity.student.utwente.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I personally wouldn't worry about 5% performance difference, and go for the > lower temperature and increased stability. But others may have different > opinions. My proposal is therefore to make the hlt instruction a kernel > option for SMP systems. That way everyone can experiment for themselves and > possible problems may be detected. Everyone, This thread has been a fascinating walk through CPU temperatures under SMP - but surely, no one should be designing a system that relies on the 'thermal characteristics of the software running' to ensure safe operation? - If the spec says you need to dissipate 32 Watts of heat from the CPU, you design a system to dissipate 32 Watts (probably a bit more for 'safety'? :)... Taking it to an extreme, it would be like building a system that falls over when it 'happens to be busy' one day, 'cause someone ran something computationally intensive? - I know for a fact these systems do exist, but we don't really want to be helping sweep the cause under the rug do we? I don't like the 5% speed decrease either - our SMP systems are SMP because we need the speed. They are built to handle the thermals - so the thought of dropping 5% in speed isn't appealing... At the very worst can this be made a 'default off' option? :-) And, I wasn't be funny - the thread _really_ was interesting... :) -Karl's $.02 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-smp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?390C4185.5C07088A>