[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1103310252160.8569@x980>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:02:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] x86 idle: remove NOP cpuinfo_x86.hlt_works_ok flag
> > hlt_works_ok was X86_32 only, initialized to 1, and never cleared.
> >
> > On 32-bit kernels, this deletes a line from /proc/cpuinfo: "hlt_bug : no"
>
> I think you missed the valid usecase where an old CPU with broken halt is
> booted with the no-hlt boot parameter and does not want to crash in the HLT
> instruction.
>
> That "no-hlt" boot parameter does:
>
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/bugs.c: boot_cpu_data.hlt_works_ok = 0;
>
> We can restrict compatibility, but *please* lets do it *explicitly*, not under
> some 'remove unused code' pretense ...
>
> Could you please list all CPU models that are affected?
"no-hlt" existed only for 32-bit, and there were exactly zero
automatic invocations of it.
"idle=poll" does the same thing -- sans change a line
in /proc/cpuinfo.
Do we really need both?
thanks,
-Len
--
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