[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150612075033.GA24767@hr-slim.amd.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2015 15:50:33 +0800
From: Huang Rui <ray.huang@....com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Frédéric Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Aaron Lu <aaron.lu@...el.com>,
Suravee Suthikulanit <suravee.suthikulpanit@....com>,
Tony Li <tony.li@....com>, Ken Xue <ken.xue@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86, mwaitt: introduce mwaix delay with a
configurable timer
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 09:38:48AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 12:03:22PM +0800, Huang Rui wrote:
>
> > > What's the purpose of the "enable" parameter?
> > >
> >
> > Enable mwaitx timer. Should I add comments to explain the usage?
>
> No, you should read your own patch, notice that the only usage site
> provides a true, then realize its a redundant bit of code and kill it
> dead.
Yeah, but I remembered at last time, someone tell me we shouldn't
force to set timer always enabled. So I add this interface to expose
more clearly. :)
So could I use __mwaitx directly like below:
__monitorx(&dummy, 0, 0);
__mwaitx(0xf, delay, MWAITX_ECX_TIMER_ENABLE);
Thanks,
Rui
--
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