Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:07:20 -0400 From: Don Bowman <don@sandvine.com> To: 'Marko Zec' <zec@tel.fer.hr>, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: 'James' <haesu@towardex.com> Subject: RE: device polling takes more CPU hits?? Message-ID: <FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9441@mail.sandvine.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
From: Marko Zec [mailto:zec@tel.fer.hr] > On Monday 26 July 2004 17:35, Don Bowman wrote: > > > root@r2.bos# sysctl machdep.cpu_idle_hlt > > > machdep.cpu_idle_hlt: 1 > > > At least on -STABLE, machdep.cpu_idle_hlt setting is ignored > / irrelevant when > both kern.polling.enable and kern.polling.idle_poll are set. > Hmm, this is more interesting. Since you are SMP, and using POLLING, i assume you did like me and commented out the !POLLING in SMP #error statement. You definitely want the halt on idle. The polling in idle doesn't work anyway, so try disabling it. James, not sure if you saw the rest of my email with my params: > kern.polling.burst: 1000 > kern.polling.each_burst: 80 > kern.polling.burst_max: 1000 > kern.polling.idle_poll: 0 > kern.polling.poll_in_trap: 0 > kern.polling.user_frac: 5 > kern.polling.reg_frac: 120 > kern.polling.short_ticks: 29 > kern.polling.lost_polls: 55004 > kern.polling.pending_polls: 0 > kern.polling.residual_burst: 0 > kern.polling.handlers: 4 > kern.polling.enable: 1 > kern.polling.phase: 0 > kern.polling.suspect: 50690 > kern.polling.stalled: 25
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?FE045D4D9F7AED4CBFF1B3B813C85337051D9441>