[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150520085520.GA8566@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 10:55:20 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, 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>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/4] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaitx idle with a
configurable timer
* Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de> wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 04:01:10PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
> > MWAITX/MWAIT does not let the cpu core go into C1 state on AMD processors.
> > The cpu core still consumes less power while waiting, and has faster exit
> > from waiting than "Halt". This patch implements an interface using the
> > kernel parameter "idle=" to configure mwaitx type and timer value.
> >
> > If "idle=mwaitx", the timeout will be set as the maximum value
> > ((2^64 - 1) * TSC cycle).
> > If "idle=mwaitx,100", the timeout will be set as 100ns.
> > If the processor doesn't support MWAITX, then halt is used.
So what does the hardware do with the timeout value?
Does it use it to decide how 'deep' a sleep it will go into, i.e.
larger timeouts cause longer entry and exit latencies?
Or some other purpose?
I suppose it's also the case that if an interrupt arrives _before_ the
expected timeout then MWAITX will try to exit immediately, it won't
wait until the timeout, right?
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