cvs commit: src/sys/alpha/alpha machdep.c src/sys/alpha/include
cpuconf.h src/sys/alpha/pci lca.c lcareg.h
ticso at cicely12.cicely.de
Tue Feb 1 14:35:19 PST 2005
On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:32:13AM -0500, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Tuesday 01 February 2005 10:28 am, Bernd Walter wrote:
> > Would the PAL call work for SMP systems?
> Yes, though it says that the CPU counter can slow down while it is in the
> waiting state, so it seems that PAL is free to implement something just like
> what you did.
I'm more worried about wakeup e.g. in case of one CPU releasing a lock
another is waiting for.
> > AFAIK no alpha CPU has native halt support so there is not much magic
> > that PAL can do for us.
> > What I've found out about this case is that alpha CPUs automaticaly
> > reduce power on unused parts and running just a tight loop, that works
> > without memory access, for a few microsecsonds might be more efficient
> > do do it ourself than calling PAL, which must be doing something
> > similar.
> > At least I think it is possible to reduce idle power consumption from
> > the current situation either way.
> Yes, right now we buzz loop with a memory access on each iteration, we could
> add a for loop that just decrements a counter to zero to the idle loop if
> desired. With preemption turned on we could have the idle process not check
> the run queues at all and just sit in a buzz loop.
Exactly this is what I was thinking about, but wanted to do power
But my priority has more interessting stuff first - the lca code
already existed for years now.
B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de
bernd at bwct.de info at bwct.de
More information about the cvs-all