[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110324235654.GM21838@one.firstfloor.org>
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 00:56:54 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>,
Jan Beulich <JBeulich@...ell.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, tee@....com,
Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lock if possible
> never EVER seen any good explanation of why that particular sh*t
> argument would b true. It seems to be purely about politics, where
> some idiotic vendor (namely HP) has convinced Intel that they really
> need it. To the point where some engineers seem to have bought into
> the whole thing and actually believe that fairy tale ("firmware can do
> better" - hah! They must be feeding people some bad drugs at the
> cafeteria)
For the record I don't think it's a good idea for the BIOS to do
this (and I'm not aware of any engineer who does),
but I think Linux should do better than just disabling PMU use when
this happens.
However I suspect taking over SCI would cause endless problems
and is very likely not a good idea.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only.
--
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