Re: disabled CST_CNT write
on 08/07/2012 19:49 Nate Lawson said the following: On Jul 8, 2012, at 2:11 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote: acpi_cpu.c has a block of code to write CST_CNT to SMI_CMD, but the block is under #ifdef notyet. It seems that the code was added that many years ago and never enabled. Now, judging from the reports I've seen on this mailing list, it appears that _CST changes do happen and the driver seem to handle them sufficiently well. I think that a lot of modern platforms do not even provide CST_CNT and assume that an OS is able to handle C-state change notifications. So, I guess that it should be safe to enable the code in question now. Could anyone with a FreeBSD laptop and non-zero CST_CNT in FADT please test this? It was only under an #ifdef because at the time our CST implementation couldn't handle CST changes cleanly. I had added some support for it, but since it couldn't be tested, I wasn't sure how actual hardware would behave. I think it's fine to enable now. I think 2007-era Thinkpads were some of the first to add this feature. Nate, thank you for the information/explanation. -- Andriy Gapon ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: improve cx_lowest logic
On Sun, 8 Jul 2012 13:22:49 +0300, Andriy Gapon wrote: I would like to propose the following change for review and testing: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi_cpu_cx_lowest.diff The idea is to separate effective cx_lowest (the limit that the idling code should not currently exceed) from user-set cx_lowest limit/target. Specifically, this addresses dynamic C-state changes by ACPI platform. Currently if a user sets cx_lowest to, say, C3, then available C-states change so that C2 is the deepest available C-state and cx_lowest gets overridden to C2 and all memory of C3 setting is lost. I wonder if that explains why setting C3 on aforesaid T23 has no effect (in terms of dev.cpu.0.cx_usage indicating any time spent in C3) unless the machine happened to be booted up on battery, in which case C3 is shown as working whenever its enabled, by power_profile or manually? Would I be wasting my time or yours trying this on an 8.2-R kernel? Or are there other major changes that probably preclude this? The patch applies cleanly, but the offsets look a bit daunting: smithi on t23% patch acpi_cpu_cx_lowest.diff Hmm... Looks like a unified diff to me... The text leading up to this was: -- |diff --git a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c |index e2a3dbf..e7ca14d 100644 |--- a/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c |+++ b/sys/dev/acpica/acpi_cpu.c -- Patching file acpi_cpu.c using Plan A... Hunk #1 succeeded at 86 (offset -3 lines). Hunk #2 succeeded at 132 (offset -7 lines). Hunk #3 succeeded at 170 (offset -3 lines). Hunk #4 succeeded at 548 (offset -42 lines). Hunk #5 succeeded at 792 (offset -29 lines). Hunk #6 succeeded at 787 (offset -42 lines). Hunk #7 succeeded at 812 (offset -29 lines). Hunk #8 succeeded at 817 (offset -42 lines). Hunk #9 succeeded at 1013 (offset -31 lines). Hunk #10 succeeded at 1010 (offset -42 lines). Hunk #11 succeeded at 1150 (offset -31 lines). Hunk #12 succeeded at 1168 (offset -42 lines). Hunk #13 succeeded at 1208 (offset -31 lines). done I hope to get another machine going soon on which I can play with 9-stable, maybe 10, but meanwhile this one is bread and butter .. cheers, Ian ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: improve cx_lowest logic
On Sun, 2012-07-08 at 03:22 -0700, Andriy Gapon wrote: I would like to propose the following change for review and testing: http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/acpi_cpu_cx_lowest.diff Very nice. After a review I went ahead and applied it for testing. All seems to be well on battery and A/C on my T520 so I'm very happy to see this go into the tree. Let me know if you want me to do the man page update for acpi_cpu(4) Sean ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: improve cx_lowest logic
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 07:27 -0700, Ian Smith wrote: I wonder if that explains why setting C3 on aforesaid T23 has no effect (in terms of dev.cpu.0.cx_usage indicating any time spent in C3) unless the machine happened to be booted up on battery, in which case C3 is shown as working whenever its enabled, by power_profile or manually? silly question, did you set these in /etc/rc.conf ?? performance_cx_lowest=LOW economy_cx_lowest=LOW Sean ___ freebsd-acpi@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-acpi To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-acpi-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
