[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUb6yhLAZ5P3J86h7DVR-vq0aVD9EHTc3YRPU2E735ETg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2015 17:31:27 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Andy Henroid <andrew.d.henroid@...el.com>,
"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
Subject: Re: Getting rid of i7300_idle's idle notifier?
On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 4:32 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> wrote:
> AFAICT the sole purpose for the hideous x86_64 idle_notifier mess is
> to support i7300_idle. IMO this junk does not belong in IRQ handling,
> etc. Can we redo this to work in some kind of generic way?
>
> I have no idea why it makes sense to twiddle I/O AT registers in the
> beginning of whatever IRQ wakes up the CPU.
>
> Note that, if absolutely necessary, the ECX bit 0 MWAIT extension can
> be used to reliably execute code before handling interrupts that wake
> us from idle. That is, there could be a real cpuidle driver for that
> chip that does:
>
> cli;
> poke ioat;
> mwait(ecx = 1);
> poke ioat;
> sti;
>
> Or we could delete the driver entirely.
It's even easier than that. Just shove the hooks into
acpi_idle_do_entry or similar and remove them from every other
exit_idle call site in the kernel.
--Andy
--
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