[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131219170741.GB30382@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 18:07:41 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 idle: repair large-server 50-watt idle-power
regression
* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com> wrote:
> On 12/19/2013 08:21 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> > What's that mb for?
> >
>
> It already exists in mwait_idle_with_hints(); I just moved it into
> this common function. It is a bit odd, I have to admit; it seems
> like it should be *before* the monitor (and possibly we should have
> one after the CLFLUSH as well?)
Yes, I think we need a barrier before the CLFLUSH, because according
to my reading of the Intel documentation CLFLUSH has no implicit
ordering so it might get reordered with the store to ->flags in
current_set_polling_and_test(), which might result in spurious wakeup
problems again.
(And CLFLUSH is a store in a sense, so special in that the regular
ordering for stores does not apply.)
Likewise, having a barrier before the MONITOR looks sensible as well.
Having it _after_ monitor looks weird and is probably wrong. [It might
have been the effects of someone seeing the spurious wakeup problems
with realizing the true source, or so.]
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