[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200226211040.GS160988@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 13:10:40 -0800
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Kyung Min Park <kyung.min.park@...el.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, ashok.raj@...el.com, ravi.v.shankar@...el.com,
fenghua.yu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86/asm/delay: Introduce TPAUSE delay
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:10:58AM -0800, Kyung Min Park wrote:
> TPAUSE instructs the processor to enter an implementation-dependent
> optimized state. The instruction execution wakes up when the time-stamp
> counter reaches or exceeds the implicit EDX:EAX 64-bit input value.
> The instruction execution also wakes up due to the expiration of
> the operating system time-limit or by an external interrupt
This is actually a behavior change. Today's udelay() will continue
after processing the interrupt. Your patches don't
I don't think it's a problem though. The interrupt will cause
a long enough delay that exceed any reasonable udelay() requirements.
There would be a difference if someone did really long udelay()s, much
longer than typical interrupts, in this case you might end up
with a truncated udelay, but such long udelays are not something that we
would encourage.
I don't think you need to change anything in the code, but should
probably document this behavior.
-Andi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists