Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-27 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Sat, Nov 26, 2016 at 02:37:45PM -0800, Jason Harmening wrote: > I can confirm this patch works. HPET is now chosen over LAPIC as the > eventtimer source, and the system works smoothly without disabling C2 or > mwait. Thank you for the testing. The change was committed to HEAD as r309189.

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-26 Thread Jason Harmening
I can confirm this patch works. HPET is now chosen over LAPIC as the eventtimer source, and the system works smoothly without disabling C2 or mwait. On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 4:12 AM, Jason Harmening wrote: > On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Konstantin Belousov

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-25 Thread Jason Harmening
On Fri, Nov 25, 2016 at 1:25 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:28:08PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:18:15AM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: > > > I think you are probably right. Hacking out the Intel-specific > > >

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-25 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 06:28:08PM +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:18:15AM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: > > I think you are probably right. Hacking out the Intel-specific > > additions to C-state parsing in acpi_cpu_cx_cst() from r282678 (thus > > going back to

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-03 Thread Scott Bennett
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 10:23:24 -0400 George Mitchell wrote: >On 11/01/16 23:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jason Harmening >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry, that should be ~*30ms* to get 30fps, though the variance is still

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread Ian Smith
On Wed, 2 Nov 2016 18:28:08 +0200, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:18:15AM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: > > I think you are probably right. Hacking out the Intel-specific > > additions to C-state parsing in acpi_cpu_cx_cst() from r282678 (thus > > going back to

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Wed, Nov 02, 2016 at 09:18:15AM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: > I think you are probably right. Hacking out the Intel-specific > additions to C-state parsing in acpi_cpu_cx_cst() from r282678 (thus > going back to sti;hlt instead of monitor+mwait at C1) fixed the problem > for me. But r282678

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread Jason Harmening
On 11/02/16 00:55, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:29:13PM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: >> repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if anyone's interested. >> >> On 11/01/16 13:58, Jason Harmening wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> I recently upgraded my main amd64

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread George Mitchell
On 11/01/16 23:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jason Harmening > wrote: > >> Sorry, that should be ~*30ms* to get 30fps, though the variance is still >> up to 500ms for me either way. >> >> On 11/01/16 14:29, Jason Harmening wrote: >>> repro

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:29:13PM -0700, Jason Harmening wrote: > repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if anyone's interested. > > On 11/01/16 13:58, Jason Harmening wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I recently upgraded my main amd64 server from 10.3-stable (r302011) to > > 11.0-stable

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-02 Thread Jason Harmening
On 11/01/16 22:49, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Jason Harmening > > wrote: > > > > On 11/01/16 20:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jason Harmening > >

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Kevin Oberman
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 10:16 PM, Jason Harmening wrote: > > > On 11/01/16 20:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jason Harmening > > > wrote: > > > > Sorry, that should be ~*30ms*

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
On 11/01/16 20:45, Kevin Oberman wrote: > On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jason Harmening > > wrote: > > Sorry, that should be ~*30ms* to get 30fps, though the variance is still > up to 500ms for me either way. > > On

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Kevin Oberman
On Tue, Nov 1, 2016 at 2:36 PM, Jason Harmening wrote: > Sorry, that should be ~*30ms* to get 30fps, though the variance is still > up to 500ms for me either way. > > On 11/01/16 14:29, Jason Harmening wrote: > > repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
Sorry, that should be ~*30ms* to get 30fps, though the variance is still up to 500ms for me either way. On 11/01/16 14:29, Jason Harmening wrote: > repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if anyone's interested. > > On 11/01/16 13:58, Jason Harmening wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> I recently

Re: huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
repro code is at http://pastebin.com/B68N4AFY if anyone's interested. On 11/01/16 13:58, Jason Harmening wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I recently upgraded my main amd64 server from 10.3-stable (r302011) to > 11.0-stable (r308099). It went smoothly except for one big issue: > certain applications

huge nanosleep variance on 11-stable

2016-11-01 Thread Jason Harmening
Hi everyone, I recently upgraded my main amd64 server from 10.3-stable (r302011) to 11.0-stable (r308099). It went smoothly except for one big issue: certain applications (but not the system as a whole) respond very sluggishly, and video playback of any kind is extremely choppy. The system is