Date: Sun, 4 May 2014 18:53:21 -0600 (MDT) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> Cc: Kevin Oberman <rkoberman@gmail.com>, "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>, Rui Paulo <rpaulo@felyko.com>, "freebsd-arch@freebsd.org" <freebsd-arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: proposal: set default lid state to S3, performance/economy Cx states to Cmax Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405041829030.9604@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-Vmo=aWmrxYPq9znwwi3C4wqf%2B_Q0DE3eLjmNMuHXVDnLHfA@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJ-Vmo=mUtpjgVwNHg8af05vCxVchZdsaekR9_Wf-pOfFjnABQ@mail.gmail.com> <FCE7DE37-81D4-4859-98DF-89E606B29CAC@felyko.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1405041641290.9118@wonkity.com> <CAJ-Vmo=aWmrxYPq9znwwi3C4wqf%2B_Q0DE3eLjmNMuHXVDnLHfA@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 4 May 2014, Adrian Chadd wrote: > [snip] > > The easy-to-run test is "sysctl dev.cpu.0.cx_lowest=Cmax" and then use stuff. It's that "use stuff" step that would preferably be automated. Is the failure mode a lockup, or could a program detect problems? The idea is to get lots of feedback, fast. > The problem is that we're not getting anywhere near enough exposure to > this kind of stuff because we don't have it on by default and we don't > have an active QA group with ridiculous amounts of hardware. > > So, I'd like to flip it on and then start blacklisting devices that > actively don't work in halt states above C1. We're never going to > cross this bridge fully if we leave things at C1 out of fear. > > I'm only suggesting we do this on -HEAD. If it's too scary then we can > always flip the default back to C1 for 11.0-RELEASE. Seems reasonable to me.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1405041829030.9604>