[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUxOd6P-Yh78qjmOYnh9jY0ggeb4vB=coVjMjthXMTREg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2020 14:51:08 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Kyung Min Park <kyung.min.park@...el.com>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>,
"Ravi V. Shankar" <ravi.v.shankar@...el.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] x86/delay: Introduce TPAUSE delay
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 3:00 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
>
> Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org> writes:
> > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 9:13 PM Kyung Min Park <kyung.min.park@...el.com> wrote:
> >> void use_tsc_delay(void)
> >> {
> >> - if (delay_fn == delay_loop)
> >> + if (static_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_WAITPKG)) {
> >> + delay_halt_fn = delay_halt_tpause;
> >> + delay_fn = delay_halt;
> >> + } else if (delay_fn == delay_loop) {
> >> delay_fn = delay_tsc;
> >> + }
> >> }
> >
> > This is an odd way to dispatch: you're using static_cpu_has(), but
> > you're using it once to populate a function pointer. Why not just put
> > the static_cpu_has() directly into delay_halt() and open-code the
> > three variants?
>
> Two: mwaitx and tpause.
I was imagining there would also be a variant for systems with neither feature.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists