[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52DCEAF4.3040902@zytor.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:23:00 -0800
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, linux-next@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the tip tree
On 01/20/2014 01:16 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>
>> The difference is the STI!
>
> So do the local_irq_enable(); mwait_idle_with_hints(0,0); thing.
>
No, that doesn't work. The point of __sti_mwait() is that the STI is
the instruction immediately before the MWAIT, just like the combination
STI;HLT. Since the execution of STI is always delayed by one
instruction, these two instructions form an atomic unit, which means
interrupts are enabled "after" we have entered MWAIT or HLT.
> But that's entirely different from saying that core2 doesn't support
> mwait_idle_with_hints because its a different instruction.
If you think of STI;MWAIT as a "compound instruction" it kind of is.
Newer CPUs don't have to play that trick anymore, because there is a
flag to MWAIT which breaks us out of MWAIT on a pending interrupt
without having to actually enable interrupts at the point of the MWAIT.
-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