From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov 24 08:07:08 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2104B16A41F;
	Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:07:08 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org)
Received: from www.cryptography.com (li-22.members.linode.com [64.5.53.22])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD31543D49;
	Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:07:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nate@root.org)
Received: from [10.0.5.50] (ppp-71-139-30-140.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net
	[71.139.30.140])
	by www.cryptography.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jAO87AZM023788
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT);
	Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:07:10 -0800
Message-ID: <438574A4.80001@root.org>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 00:07:00 -0800
From: Nate Lawson <nate@root.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hajimu UMEMOTO <ume@freebsd.org>
References: <4377775B.3080606@pldrouin.net>	<20051114105854.GA1041@galgenberg.net>	<4378CC14.2020109@pldrouin.net>	<ygek6f9g83g.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>	<437A3901.8010001@pldrouin.net>	<437A3B96.4040300@root.org>	<437B42C0.9040605@pldrouin.net>	<437CAEB0.9060202@pldrouin.net>	<yge7jb0x28z.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>	<43837A34.1030900@root.org>
	<ygeveyk2ga4.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
In-Reply-To: <ygeveyk2ga4.wl%ume@mahoroba.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Pierre-Luc Drouin <pldrouin@pldrouin.net>, acpi@freebsd.org,
	freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Performance problem since updating from 6.0-RELEASE
 to	6.0-STABLE last friday
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
	<mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 08:07:08 -0000

Hajimu UMEMOTO wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:06:12 -0800
>>>>>>Nate Lawson <nate@root.org> said:
> 
> 
> nate> Thank you for tracking this down.  It is interesting that BIF is 
> nate> heavyweight while BST is not.  I guess that is expected behavior by OEMs 
> nate> which only test on Windows and so not everyone makes BIF simple.  On my 
> nate> laptops, BIF is as fast as BST.
> 
> You are welcome.  My laptops are also fast enough for BIF.  I
> remembered that iwasaki-san grouched at the heavyweight of BIF when he
> was writing cmbat support.
> 
> nate> I don't like the patch approach (changing the API), however.  Let me 
> nate> look at it and commit a fix that doesn't change the API.
> 
> Yes, I didn't feel satisfaction with my patch, too.  So, I anticipated
> that you say so. :-)

My patch has been committed, tested, and MFCd.  Thank you for your 
debugging help, Umemoto-san.

-- 
Nate