Re: [PATCH] 2.6, 2.4, Nforce2, Experimental idle halt workaroundinstead of apic ack delay.

[Derek Foreman]

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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/