Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2013 01:03:47 +0300 From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian@FreeBSD.org> Cc: "freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org" <freebsd-acpi@FreeBSD.org>, FreeBSD Stable Mailing List <freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org>, Mike Harding <mvharding@gmail.com> Subject: Re: 9.2-RC3 - suspend/resume causes slow system performance Message-ID: <5223B9C3.2070508@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJ-VmomweLyjXnBHjp=Nrs3P4n7UNF1bCV_N41RYJQqGLpg9hQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CALRn2n_2tUc0vPCFpgmAjYRm1=7KB5sA3A%2BxQqcc=ye-S1-0LA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ-Vmom970ZBLPLWWTomkKtX1w-Fi3cj5qva1_ODcx22nqEXfA@mail.gmail.com> <CALRn2n9G1%2BBS8KVUc_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> <CAJ-VmokHyXaxZTb-3Bpp19Go%2BsW=ms0Zh0WAMB7sD1JSX6HdUw@mail.gmail.com> <5223B313.9060708@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmomweLyjXnBHjp=Nrs3P4n7UNF1bCV_N41RYJQqGLpg9hQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
on 02/09/2013 00:58 Adrian Chadd said the following: > On 1 September 2013 14:35, Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org > <mailto:avg@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > > Do you have any evidence that there is anybody else besides Mike who has this > problem? > > > > Nope! but we can't assume that users are reporting all the system slowdowns. Why? > And honestly, I've heard enough strange stories on mailing lists and IRC of > things like "during disk IO, blah would be really slow, when I change > timekeeping or halt from ACPI to something else, things get better." So I can't > discount that this is affecting people and they either don't know, or just chalk > it up as "shitty hardware." Strange stories are just that. > Also, I usually try to "sort out" things after there is a clear understanding of > what the problem is and how it should be fixed. > > > Well, the big change is that it's now going into a sleep state on a HT core, right? > > Are you able to go into an ACPI sleep state on a HT logical CPU, rather than the > physical core? Or am I mis-understanding what's going on? Most likely. I do not see how the change is HT-specific or HT-related at all. > > > 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? > > I do not see any problem with the code*.* I do not see any explanation of the > root cause of the problem that Mike has. I do not see why anything has to be > reverted. Especially because "since we're so close to 9.2-REL". > Just in case, I'll remind that the commit in question is in stable/9 since Dec > 23 2012. > > > Right, but I also know a lot of people who just have stayed with 8.x or > 9.0-RELEASE and haven't bothered upgrading. Again, I can't assume that everyone > has been keeping up to date with stable/9 and providing feedback. I am positive that it's not everyone who uses (up-to-date) stable/9. Still, I believe that a user-base of stable/9 is >> 1. -- Andriy Gapon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5223B9C3.2070508>