From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Jul 26 20:07:26 2004
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 865B316A4D0
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:26 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from mail.sandvine.com (sandvine.com [199.243.201.138])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF46C43D5E
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:25 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from don@sandvine.com)
Received: by mail.sandvine.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
	id <PAC3RLFG>; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:07:25 -0400
Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9441@mail.sandvine.com>
From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com>
To: 'Marko Zec' <zec@tel.fer.hr>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:07:20 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
cc: 'James' <haesu@towardex.com>
Subject: RE: device polling takes more CPU hits??
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 20:07:26 -0000

From: Marko Zec [mailto:zec@tel.fer.hr]
> On Monday 26 July 2004 17:35, Don Bowman wrote:
> > >                   root@r2.bos# sysctl machdep.cpu_idle_hlt
> > > machdep.cpu_idle_hlt: 1
> 
> 
> At least on -STABLE, machdep.cpu_idle_hlt setting is ignored 
> / irrelevant when 
> both kern.polling.enable and kern.polling.idle_poll are set.
> 

Hmm, this is more interesting.
Since you are SMP, and using POLLING, i assume you did
like me and commented out the !POLLING in SMP #error statement.
You definitely want the halt on idle. The polling in idle
doesn't work anyway, so try disabling it.

James, not sure if you saw the rest of my email with
my params:

> kern.polling.burst: 1000
> kern.polling.each_burst: 80
> kern.polling.burst_max: 1000
> kern.polling.idle_poll: 0
> kern.polling.poll_in_trap: 0
> kern.polling.user_frac: 5
> kern.polling.reg_frac: 120
> kern.polling.short_ticks: 29
> kern.polling.lost_polls: 55004
> kern.polling.pending_polls: 0
> kern.polling.residual_burst: 0
> kern.polling.handlers: 4
> kern.polling.enable: 1
> kern.polling.phase: 0
> kern.polling.suspect: 50690
> kern.polling.stalled: 25