From owner-freebsd-mobile  Thu Apr  6 16: 4:10 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org
Received: from ns.yogotech.com (ns.yogotech.com [206.127.79.126])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 037F737B589
	for <freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG>; Thu,  6 Apr 2000 16:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from nate@yogotech.com)
Received: from nomad.yogotech.com (nomad.yogotech.com [206.127.79.115])
	by ns.yogotech.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA25672;
	Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:03:58 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from nate@nomad.yogotech.com)
Received: (from nate@localhost)
	by nomad.yogotech.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id RAA25151;
	Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:03:58 -0600 (MDT)
	(envelope-from nate)
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 17:03:58 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <200004062303.RAA25151@nomad.yogotech.com>
From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: "Jose M. Alcaide" <jose@we.lc.ehu.es>
Cc: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com>, freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: proposal of a better solution for "statclock broken" laptops
In-Reply-To: <38ED1721.BF297B57@we.lc.ehu.es>
References: <38ECA91E.F98AE48@we.lc.ehu.es>
	<200004061710.LAA22387@nomad.yogotech.com>
	<38ED1721.BF297B57@we.lc.ehu.es>
X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 19.16 "Lille" XEmacs Lucid
Reply-To: nate@yogotech.com (Nate Williams)
Sender: owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org

> > Ahh, it was *you* that proposed the fix, and later assigned it to Bruce.
> > Can you tell me what is different about the fix you posted in your PR
> > vs. this one?
> 
> They deal with different problems. The statclock did not start on my
> Dell I3.7k because of a pending interrupt being not cleared at startup.
> The patch included in PR 17800 fixes this problem.

Ok, so even if it starts up, it doesn't work right if you suspend,
correct?

> The "broken statclock" is a different problem, related to APM: some
> machines cannot be put in suspended state while the statclock is generating
> interrupts.

I am very familiar with the problem, having had the luck of tracking it
down about 2 years ago. :(

I thought maybe you found a special initialization routine that caused
it work without any special 'suspend/resume' code.

> > Finally, not having the statclock is *really* not that big of a deal.
> > It makes for better heuristics in the scheduler, but in fact makes very
> > little difference in most machines as far as performance goes.
> 
> True, we can live without the statclock, but if there is some way
> to keep it working... (actually, the statclock problem is one of my
> obsessions since I got my I3.7k in January) :-) :-)

*grin*


Nate


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-mobile" in the body of the message