On Tuesday 28 June 2011 05:18 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote: > on 29/06/2011 00:13 Jung-uk Kim said the following: > > On Tuesday 28 June 2011 03:37 pm, Vitaly Magerya wrote: > >>> I think that part (but not all) of the differences between > >>> FreeBSD and Linux can be explained by the fact that FreeBSD > >>> currently doesn't advertise itself as featuring > >>> ACPI_CAP_SMP_C1_NATIVE and ACPI_CAP_SMP_C3_NATIVE. I am not > >>> sure what it would take to actually support these features. I > >>> think that Linux does support (or at least advertise support) > >>> for these features. > >> > >> Is there some simple way of sending fake advertisement? Or will > >> that lead to disaster? > > > > Actually, ACPI_CAP_SMP_C1_NATIVE is kinda supported but without > > hints from ACPI _CST FFH. It sits in machdep.c as > > cpu_idle_mwait(). So, I think you can advertise them. The > > easist way is this (not tested): > > But don't we currently ignore FFH-type C state definitions?
Correct. > I am not sure that mwait that we use (its parameters) would be the > same as the system would expect us to use unless we actually parse > FFH data. Even for C1 sate. It is unfortunate but you're correct. We don't have correct support code yet. > Also I am not sure if that would give much gain/difference. Just for the sake of testing your theory, nothing more, nothing less. Jung-uk Kim _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
