Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:11:13 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Warner Losh <imp@village.org> Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: new idle_proc() makes my laptop very hot Message-ID: <200009220011.RAA52850@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 21 Sep 2000 17:59:25 MDT." <200009212359.RAA63352@harmony.village.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> : >> 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. > > Since I'm running a UP kernel, that can't happen. Actually, there are pathalogical cases where it could, but they are, well, pathalogical. 8) -- ... every activity meets with opposition, everyone who acts has his rivals and unfortunately opponents also. But not because people want to be opponents, rather because the tasks and relationships force people to take different points of view. [Dr. Fritz Todt] To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200009220011.RAA52850>