From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Dec 30 4: 7:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from overcee.netplex.com.au (overcee.netplex.com.au [202.12.86.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9592F14FF9 for ; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 04:07:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Received: from netplex.com.au (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by overcee.netplex.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id 595DD1CA0; Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:07:11 +0800 (WST) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Rasmus Kaj Cc: tsikora@powerusersbbs.com, "freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG" Subject: Re: Temperature In-Reply-To: Message from Rasmus Kaj of "Wed, 29 Dec 1999 20:49:22 +0100." <386A65C2.B2BFF596@Raditex.se> Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 20:07:11 +0800 From: Peter Wemm Message-Id: <19991230120711.595DD1CA0@overcee.netplex.com.au> Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Rasmus Kaj wrote: > Peter Wemm wrote, about processor temp, etc: > > > The main difference is that Linux halts the cpu in the idle loop, we don't. > > As a result the cpu is in a tight spin waiting for a process to become > > scheduleable. I have some patches half-done that I've been working on for > > 4.0 that should probably be able to be adapted to the 3.x series. > > The FAQ says that FreeBSD does use the HLT instruction when idle, is > this wrong? In uniprocessor mode, yes it uses HLT (and always has). Under SMP it does not (and never has). Cheers, -Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message