[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150420174544.GA18931@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 19:45:44 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: "Brown, Len" <len.brown@...el.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86: replace cpu_up hard-coded mdelay with variable
* Brown, Len <len.brown@...el.com> wrote:
> > What's the cutoff for 'modern hardware' - which CPUs stopped requiring
> > the delay?
>
> This is the topic of ongoing research, and I'm not ready to send
> the patch setting a new default until I've heard back from a few more HW people.
>
> Every system I've tested appears to work with delay 0.
> Were I to guess, I'd venture that every
> system that runs an X86_64 kernel might count as "modern" -- even
> the 2005 AMD Turion laptop I've got in the bone pile.
Could we use the apic version as a cutoff perhaps?
It would be nice to 'automatically' include modern 32-bit x86 systems
as well.
Any failure here would be relatively easy to bisect to, so we might as
well guess a bit and refine the quirk condition if needed?
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