[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BE493D6.6000105@zytor.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2010 15:27:34 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
CC: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
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 05/07/2010 03:24 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I'd be cool skipping it for family 5 or newer. I'm just wondering if we
>> should kill it completely -- IIRC it was only a handful of 386/486
>> systems which had problems, usually due to marginal power supplies which
>> couldn't handle the noise of a variable load (DOS not having any power
>> management would run at a reliable 100% load) -- that's not exactly the
>> type of systems which would have survived to modern day.
>
> Also SMM and hardware bugs on some platforms - Cyrix MediaGX 5510 for
> example where a hlt at the wrong moment during ATA transfers hung the box
> until power cycle. But all old old stuff.
I think family < 5 seems a reasonable cutoff.
Note that the ATA transfer bug you describe above would not be caught by
the existing check.
-hpa
--
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