Date: Thu, 4 May 2000 01:06:38 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: cs@sdata.de (Christoph Splittgerber) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), BHechinger@half.com (Brian Hechinger), dillon@apollo.backplane.com, jgowdy@home.com, smp@csn.net, jim@thehousleys.net, freebsd-smp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: hlt instructions and temperature issues Message-ID: <200005040106.SAA01922@usr01.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <390FDDD5.41EC0293@sdata.de> from "Christoph Splittgerber" at May 03, 2000 10:05:41 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Terry Lambert wrote: > > If the gains are purely thermal, perhaps not. It does introduce > > an additional context switch latency, when leaving the scheduler, > > for the CPU that is running -- this means that it penalizes the > > IPI sending CPU to wake up the receiving CPU. But I think that > > if this is done correctly, this will be practically unmeasurable. > > But isn't this discussion useless anyway, since we have seti@home ? :-) :-) Depends on if it's ever in an I/O wait; if it is, the CPU can be halted until the interrupt occurs on the I/O completion. "What, seti@home in an I/O wait? Perish the thought!". Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200005040106.SAA01922>