[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131211174710.GA12431@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 18:47:10 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Mike Galbraith <bitbucket@...ine.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jeremy Eder <jeder@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: 50 Watt idle power regression bisected to Linux-3.10
* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 03:42:38PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Another thing that is required I think is to issue a write barrier
> > before CLFLUSH instruction. By my (possibly incorrect ...) reading of
> > the documentation CLFLUSH does not appear to be ordered (at all), so
> > it might execute before the modification to the affected memory?
> >
> >
> > So something like:
> >
> > if (this_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CLFLUSH_MONITOR)) {
> > smp_wmb(); /* order CLFLUSH */
> > clflush(¤t_thread_info()->flags);
> > }
>
> smp_wmb() is a NO-OP on x86 remember :-)
Well, it's a compiler barrier but yes - I suspect a smp_mb() might be
needed - at least according to the CLFLUSH documentation it has no
implicit guaranteed ordering wrt. preceding writes.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
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