[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080816153109.3469878c@infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 15:31:09 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 3/3] x86: use mwait for trigger API
On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 14:50:34 -0700
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org> wrote:
> Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > monitor/mwait is rather really expensive.. are we really sure we
> > want to use this?
> > (from an Intel cpu perspective the answer is very likely no; but I
> > don't know what AMD does here)
> >
>
> The intended use is when you're going to be waiting for a while (on
> the order of microseconds or more).
well mwait really is not cheap, I'd not be surprised if it's in that
same order.
> In the Xen case, I use this to
> block the vcpu if we pass a few iterations without the condition
> being true. While the mwait patch doesn't do this at present, it
> could.
that's another hard one.. passing C-state hints into mwait needs ACPI
help; the BIOS tells us which mwait values are legal/valid at any point
in time.. but this gets tricky to put into these spinpletions.
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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