[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <475EEC10.8020300@keyaccess.nl>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 20:59:12 +0100
From: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...access.nl>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
CC: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"linux-os (Dick Johnson)" <linux-os@...logic.com>,
David Newall <david@...idnewall.com>,
Paul Rolland <rol@...917.net>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, rol@...be.net
Subject: Re: RFC: outb 0x80 in inb_p, outb_p harmful on some modern AMD64
with MCP51 laptops
On 11-12-07 20:16, Pavel Machek wrote:
>> Pavel Machek already posted one. His udelay(8) wants to be less -- 1 or "to
>> be safe" perhaps 2.
>>
>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/9/131
>
> 2 at least; that's how long outb(0x80) takes on one of my
> machines. Actually, ISA can go down to 4MHz, so maybe we should be
> using 4 usec.... but I guess I'm paranoid here.
4 isn't sensible. There have been machines capable both of running Linux and
their ISA bus at less than 8 MHz (if only for example by picking a 5 divisor
on a system that was capable of hosting a 40 Mhz 386/486 but using a slower
CPU) but not by much. And machines doing that and running Linux, even more
so "today": 0.
My posted test program (although there seems to be something wrong with it
since it's influenced by compiler optimisation) is showing more than 1 but
note that on the vast majority of machines, 0 would in fact do. 1 will on
all, 2 will as well.
Rene.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists