From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG  Sun Sep  1 20:40:44 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D141E88A;
 Sun,  1 Sep 2013 20:40:44 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from adrian.chadd@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com
 [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 152DB24A7;
 Sun,  1 Sep 2013 20:40:43 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id l18so333041wgh.16
 for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 01 Sep 2013 13:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
 :from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=+pP6GjNDfUDbLgtBGg2rfZsLHmha8o//3ObcRKQoPmk=;
 b=tL3fWtYqwEyKhAX4y7eKGLmKqz++dOrsKzWp24rrFDc8zgrU6EFkgIUjs0gi6aYADC
 qN2S8ff+Mx1Rqjy+hg8tqMd/vpQtv1IzeR70GXuPRSvGDUthrnnqwNrCwhPI/SalnSfk
 7Pb36xyOyK/UTtKf+AlUbOARhBNUdOA3c0t2ODsJngakRxdUmZlV8XYNF47jhvcvT53Q
 EKfsDZGBW+u7MdxM6xjzeuP0hqTXwAL+3jCMxMekLo8C0iopNHH9cjaAidQpscuL+RYY
 aVBjA372NUa8CW99gDrDWEfiK3OU8PQ6bt7PGiX7V7YCyssupZukkhBO0K8RiH0yb591
 8qsA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.37.164 with SMTP id z4mr10911294wij.30.1378068041804;
 Sun, 01 Sep 2013 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: adrian.chadd@gmail.com
Received: by 10.216.146.2 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Sep 2013 13:40:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5222E19C.9040402@FreeBSD.org>
References: <CALRn2n_2tUc0vPCFpgmAjYRm1=7KB5sA3A+xQqcc=ye-S1-0LA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-Vmom970ZBLPLWWTomkKtX1w-Fi3cj5qva1_ODcx22nqEXfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALRn2n9G1+BS8KVUc_RFZj-snM3FVJvsEEcnWqv-GF82=CqS6Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-VmomWMhQNU1w0eWdwrKYz2fuZ5xZimgxQWUEkPqaQcgYkjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALRn2n_e2Uu4Y2aHUSP=6_aQDPeCk_OkrCxiFWaD0BxmbgP4-A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJ-VmokesYVnYJUnNgULKwL-wqb_-SqqYi=3KUSCGbHNVgOOUw@mail.gmail.com>
 <5222E19C.9040402@FreeBSD.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2013 13:40:41 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: BayHoyoSKTHzmC1H4Y09Zfzfotc
Message-ID: <CAJ-VmokHyXaxZTb-3Bpp19Go+sW=ms0Zh0WAMB7sD1JSX6HdUw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: 9.2-RC3 - suspend/resume causes slow system performance
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org>
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org>,
 FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>,
 Mike Harding <mvharding@gmail.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code <freebsd-stable.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable>,
 <mailto:freebsd-stable-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2013 20:40:44 -0000

On 31 August 2013 23:41, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org> wrote:

> >
> >     I've tracked this down to a single line, details in
> >     http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=181632.  Basically, the
> code is
> >     now doing a 'sti, hlt' vs. a 'sti' in some code that is only
> supposed to run
> >     if idle is disabled.  Given that 'hlt' is the idle instruction, this
> doesn't
> >     seem right.
> >
> >
> > Wow, nice!
> >
> > Avg - can we get this fixed? Or just revert this!
>
> Thank you for trying to be helpful.  But let's not jump to conclusions.
> BTW, I am following up on the problem in the PR.
>

Sure, I'd like to know why it's behaving badly. But since we're so close to
9.2-REL, do you think you can get it sorted out and bug-free on all the
existing platforms that people are using 9.2 on (including server, desktop
and laptop) without reverting it?

Reverting and fixing it later seems like the safest option to me. Is there
a bigger problem that you tried to fix in that patch that wasn't as obvious?

Thanks,



-adrian