[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgTsvLivVr05CbfUEUv+maq+qyvsfXTA0W278f_JbJciw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2020 11:45:25 -0800
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"the arch/x86 maintainers" <x86@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT pull] locking/urgent for v5.10-rc6
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:56 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> So even if an architecture needs to enable interrupts on idle, we need
> it disabled again when coming out. So we might as well have the arch
> idle routine then be: STI; HLT; CLI; because then architectures than can
> idle with interrupts disabled can avoid mucking about with the interrupt
> state entirely.
But that's not what the code is doing.
Go look at it.
It does sti;hlt;cli;pushf;cli;sti.
All for no good reason - because the code is structured so that even
if all the tracking and lockdep is disabled, the pointless "let's
protect the tracking from interrupts" is still there.
See what I am complaining about?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists