[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080814200247.GA26988@8bytes.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:02:47 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Ingo Oeser <ioe-lkml@...eria.de>
Cc: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>, mingo@...hat.com,
tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] AMD IOMMU: use status bit instead of memory write-back for completion wait
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 08:35:30PM +0200, Ingo Oeser wrote:
> Hi Joerg,
>
> On Thursday 14 August 2008, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
> > index 22d7d05..028e945 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
> > @@ -122,9 +119,15 @@ static int iommu_completion_wait(struct amd_iommu *iommu)
> >
> > while (!ready && (i < EXIT_LOOP_COUNT)) {
> > ++i;
> > - cpu_relax();
>
> Could you elaborate, why you had to remove this?
>
> Busy waiting loops should always do cpu_relay()
> to reduce heat procution and power consumption while idle.
I removed it because its not idling anymore in that loop imho. It reads
data from MMIO and does a small calculation with it.
Joerg
--
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