[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BE4791B.1060304@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 13:33:31 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
CC: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Alek Du <alek.du@...el.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan.van.de.ven@...el.com>
Subject: Re: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86:
avoid check hlt if no timer interrupts)
On 5/7/2010 13:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> I really wish I knew the exact systems affected by the HLT bug. If I
> remember correctly, it was some 386 systems -- or possibly 486 systems
> as well -- a very long time ago. This test just provides a diagnosis if
> the system really is bad (it hangs with an obvious message) at the cost
> of some 40 ms to the system boot time. I suspect C1 (HLT) being broken
> is not anywhere close to the predominant power management problem in the
> current day, and as such I'm wondering if this particular test hasn't
> outlived its usefulness.
>
> Thoughts?
we could at least hide it behind the "don't run on pentium or newer" config options..
--
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