[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160311131917.GD6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 14:19:17 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, david.vrabel@...rix.com,
mingo@...hat.com, Douglas_Warzecha@...l.com, pali.rohar@...il.com,
jdelvare@...e.com, linux@...ck-us.net, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/6] Support calling functions on dedicated physical cpu
On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 01:15:04PM +0000, One Thousand Gnomes wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 13:25:14 +0100
> Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:59:28PM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> > > Some hardware (e.g. Dell Studio laptops) require special functions to
> > > be called on physical cpu 0 in order to avoid occasional hangs. When
> > > running as dom0 under Xen this could be achieved only via special boot
> > > parameters (vcpu pinning) limiting the hypervisor in it's scheduling
> > > decisions.
> >
> > So instead of telling Dell to get their act together and fix their damn
> > firmware, we're going to add the most horrid gunk to the kernel? How
> > does that make sense?
>
> It's been normal forever. The convention with a lot of older BIOS crap
> was always that it should be called on the boot CPU (APM. PnPBIOS etc).
>
> It's a stretch pre-EFI to even call it a "bug"
Yeah, I knew about the APM/PnP muck, but I was under the impression this
was about new hardware.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists