Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Alexander Motin <m...@freebsd.org > <mailto:m...@freebsd.org>> wrote: > > In that case using C2 or C3 predictably caused small performance reduce, > as after falling to sleep, CPU needs time to wakeup. Even if tested CPU0 > won't ever sleep during test, it's TLB shutdown IPIs to other cores > still probably could suffer from waiting other cores' wakeup. > > In the deeper sleep states, are the TLB contents actually maintained > while the processor sleeps? (I notice that in some configurations, we > actually flush dirty data from the cache before sleeping.)
As I understand, we flush caches only as last resort, if platform does not supports special techniques, such as disabling arbitration or making CPU to wake up on bus mastering. But same ACPI C-states could map into different CPU C-states. Some of these CPU states (like C6) could imply caches invalidation, though I am not sure it can be seen outside. ACPI 3.0 specification tells nothing about TLBs, so I am not sure we can count on their invalidation, except we do it ourselves, like it is done for caches when CPU can't keep their coherency while sleeping. -- Alexander Motin _______________________________________________ freebsd-performance@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-performance-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
