Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 15:11:08 +0100 (CET) From: Remy Nonnenmacher <remy@synx.com> To: current@freebsd.org Subject: Fwd: Idle loop in SMP. Message-ID: <199912121411.PAA39511@gw0.boostworks.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
(Forwarded to -current, due to lack of audience in -smp. Sorry for bothering you). ------ Forwarded message ------ From: Remy Nonnenmacher <remy@synx.com> 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912121411.PAA39511>