From owner-freebsd-current Sun Dec 12 6:11:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from gw0.boostworks.com (gw0.boostworks.com [194.167.81.213]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D40C14DED for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 06:11:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from root@synx.com) Received: from synx.com (root@rn.synx.com [192.1.1.241]) by gw0.boostworks.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA39511 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:11:11 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <199912121411.PAA39511@gw0.boostworks.com> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:11:08 +0100 (CET) From: Remy Nonnenmacher Reply-To: remy@synx.com Subject: Fwd: Idle loop in SMP. To: current@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG (Forwarded to -current, due to lack of audience in -smp. Sorry for bothering you). ------ Forwarded message ------ From: Remy Nonnenmacher Subject: Idle loop in SMP. Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 18:43:40 +0100 (CET) To: smp@freebsd.org Reply-To: remy@synx.com While investigating a temperature problem, I seen that the default_halt entry called for an idle processor do not really halt the processor. I found the reason on the CVS logs and it is intended to react to changes made on the run queue by the other processor. (i386/i386/swtch.s, 1.61). Since this is dated Sept 97, can we expect a better solution regarding the progress made in the SMP area ? Thanks to all. RN. IaM To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message