[lkml]   [2004]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] 2.6, 2.4, Nforce2, Experimental idle halt workaround instead of apic ack delay.
    On Thu, 12 Feb 2004, Ross Dickson wrote:

    > Greetings,
    > Approaching from this perspective the following patch implements a new idle
    > thread. One which does not go into C1 disconnect (hlt) if less than 1.6% of the
    > apic timer interval is left to execute. When you think about it, why do we
    > disconnect if we are about to reconnect? It also has a small timing delay
    > to help with back to back disconnect cycles ( SMI might put us into one? ).
    > The result should be a slightly faster system (then with my apic ack delay
    > patch) when busy but still with disconnect functioning to save power and lower
    > heat with typical loads.

    Is there a measurable performance loss over not having the patch at all?
    Some nforce2 systems work just fine. Is there a way to distinguish
    between systems that need it and those that don't?

    (if anyone's running a betting pool, my money's on nforce2+cpu with half
    frequency multiplier ;)
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.018 / U:68.772 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site