On Friday 11 June 2010 6:27:48 am Giovanni Trematerra wrote: > On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Giovanni Trematerra > <giovanni.tremate...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 6:35 PM, David DEMELIER <demelier.da...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Good news ! It worked, check the picture here : > >> > >> http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/4244/dsc00361g.jpg > >> > > > > Into the file sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c at the end of acpi_cpu_notify > > (a per cpu notification handler), called when _CST objects changing, > > global cpu_cx_count is set to the greatest value of all sc->cpu_cx_count > > per-cpu variables. That could result in a panic as David reported, > > because that lets to invoke acpi_cpu_global_cx_lowest_sysctl from > > /etc/rc.d/power_profile, when AC adapter is unplugged, with a value > > that not all the CPUs could handle in the acpi_cpu_idle. > > The patch also change global cpu_cx_lowest according to new value of > > global cpu_cx_count if needed. > > > > David Demelier made a great work to test every patch I sent him > > to identify the source of the problem. > > > > Please, let me know your comments and possibly commit the patch > > if you think is good enough. > > As jhb@ pointed me out in private with the previous patch a CPU could > never enter in the > lowest Cx-state even if it gained. > So I'd like to propose this new solution. > When hw.acpi.cpu.cx_lowest sysctl is set, the global handler in > sys/dev/acpi_cpu.c > will set the greatest sc->cpu_cx_lowest value supported by the CPU and > not the same > value for all CPUs. > Later, when CPU, possibly gain new Cx-states, the acpi_cpu_notify > handler will set > sc->cpu_cx_lowest accordingly with global cx_lowest and the Cx-states > supported by > the CPU. > > Now I think that /etc/rc.d/power_profile script has a problem but that > is a different story. > The script select the lowest_value only querying cx-states of the dev.cpu.0. > If different CPUs may have different Cx-states, the script should use > as lowest_value the > lowest value between all the CPUs.
Yes. > Please, let me know your comments and possibly commit the patch > if you think is good enough. I think this is a good compromise for now. -- John Baldwin _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
