[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090125090454.753c05dd@torg>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 09:04:54 -0600
From: Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>
To: Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Sven-Thorsten Dietrich <sdietrich@...ell.com>,
Jon Masters <jcm@...hat.com>,
Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Luis Claudio R. Goncalves" <lgoncalv@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RT] [RFC] simple SMI detector
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Sun, 25 Jan 2009 12:49:18 +0100
Bastien ROUCARIES <roucaries.bastien@...il.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> >
> > My concern about the SMI disable module is that it can damage Joe
> > users hardware. I have at least two reports where the CPU got fried
> > and some others where people got confused because chips started
> > behaving weird and it took quite a time to figure out that they used
> > the SMI disabler. A big fat warning about this code is definitely
> > necessary.
> >
> > Thanks,
>
>
> I suppose the non joe user could flash their motherboard with
> linuxcore and therefore do not distrub by SMI :)
>
Except for the fact that linuxcore is unaware of the specific
requirements a particular motherboard has for thermal management.
Turning off SMI's unconditionally is a *bad* idea. Better to start
telling hardware vendors that we can't use their platform because of
unexplained latencies (which we presume to be SMI's).
Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkl8f5oACgkQHyuj/+TTEp0JuwCfQaaugU+MY8nWHKsvXuVNmE6X
IEYAoMFn70BK9NczzHI1XnnQwy7bx/Ja
=aRKl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists