[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150520201553.GI3645@pd.tnic>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 22:15:54 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>, Tony Li <tony.li@....com>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a
configurable timer
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 09:12:15PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Which would be good enough for mdelay/udelay I think, but we'd need to
> measure the time spend in MWAITT so we wont return early.
>
> Something like this:
Yeah, with a check maybe:
> delay = usec_to_tsc(delay_usec);
if (delay > ((1 << 32) - 1)) {
mdelay(delay_usec);
return;
}
> end = rdtsc() + delay;
> while (1) {
I guess
monitorx( ...);
first.
> MWAITT(delay);
> now = rdtsc();
> if (end <= now)
> break;
> delay = end - now;
> }
>
> Now we'd need to add alternatives or some other mechanism to it to
> make this conditionally for those machines.
alternative_call(mdelay, mdelayx, X86_FEATURE_MWAITT, /* no output */, timeout);
Something like that maybe.
> Not sure if it's worth the trouble.
Could be a use case for MWAITX in the kernel!
:-D
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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