Date: Sun, 12 Sep 2010 18:38:58 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@icyb.net.ua> To: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> Cc: freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org, FreeBSD-Current <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org>, Norikatsu Shigemura <nork@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: CPU C-state storange on Panasonic TOUGH BOOK CF-R9 Message-ID: <4C8CF412.9080601@icyb.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <4C8CF03F.1050902@icyb.net.ua> References: <4C8BCAC5.5050008@root.org> <mailpost.1284277196.1767764.83548.mailing.freebsd.current@FreeBSD.cs.nctu.edu.tw> <4C8C8B64.8020907@FreeBSD.org> <20100912182625.c49d3f1d.nork@FreeBSD.org> <4C8C9F06.4090505@icyb.net.ua> <20100912190537.621e357e.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20100912190952.8c0d5726.nork@FreeBSD.org> <20100912192518.e791c191.nork@FreeBSD.org> <4C8CAC01.70004@icyb.net.ua> <4C8CAD7D.50602@FreeBSD.org> <4C8CF03F.1050902@icyb.net.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 12/09/2010 18:22 Andriy Gapon said the following:
> Observations are correct, but incomplete; the conclusions are wrong.
> At the end of the boot there are message like this one:
> PROCESSOR-0722 [402244] cpu_cx_cst : acpi_cpu0: Got C2 - 245 latency
> This is a result of re-evaluation of _CST because of a notification from ACPI.
>
But still, as you suggest, a patch like the following should be tested and
committed:
--- a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
+++ b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c
@@ -828,7 +828,8 @@ acpi_cpu_cx_list(struct acpi_cpu_softc *sc)
sbuf_new(&sb, sc->cpu_cx_supported, sizeof(sc->cpu_cx_supported),
SBUF_FIXEDLEN);
for (i = 0; i < sc->cpu_cx_count; i++) {
- sbuf_printf(&sb, "C%d/%d ", i + 1, sc->cpu_cx_states[i].trans_lat);
+ sbuf_printf(&sb, "C%d/%d ", sc->cpu_cx_states[i].type,
+ sc->cpu_cx_states[i].trans_lat);
if (sc->cpu_cx_states[i].type < ACPI_STATE_C3)
sc->cpu_non_c3 = i;
}
P.S. I restored acpi@ cc: which I think is quite relevant, but was somehow lost.
--
Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4C8CF412.9080601>