[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140509170234.GZ30445@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 19:02:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>
Cc: James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
"mingo@...nel.org" <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"luto@...capital.net" <luto@...capital.net>,
"nicolas.pitre@...aro.org" <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
"daniel.lezcano@...aro.org" <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
"umgwanakikbuti@...il.com" <umgwanakikbuti@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
ARM Kernel List <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 6/8] sched,idle: Avoid spurious wakeup IPIs
On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 03:57:45PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 03:50:02PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 03:40:34PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder why we still need TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG for arm64. It was on arm
> > > until commit 16a8016372c42c7628eb (sanitize tsk_is_polling()). On arm64
> > > we use wfi for idle or a firmware call but in both cases the assumption
> > > is that we need an interrupt for waking up.
> > >
> > > So I think we should remove this macro for arm64.
> >
> > Does ARM64 support idle=poll? If so, you could keep it for that,
> > otherwise it does indeed appear to be pointless.
>
> We don't support idle=poll either.
>
> > As to 32bit ARM, are there SMP chips which do not have WFI?
>
> No. WFI is even used for the secondary booting protocol (we need to send
> an IPI to get them going).
OK, so I'll queue a patch removing TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG for arm64.
Thanks!
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists