Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Feb 2004 12:17:12 -0600 (CST) | From | Derek Foreman <> | Subject | Re: [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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |