[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2b6143b6-9db4-05bc-1e8d-c5d129126f99@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2022 07:15:07 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: K Prateek Nayak <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: rafael@...nel.org, lenb@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
bp@...en8.de, tglx@...utronix.de, andi@...as.de, puwen@...on.cn,
mario.limonciello@....com, peterz@...radead.org,
rui.zhang@...el.com, gpiccoli@...lia.com,
daniel.lezcano@...aro.org, ananth.narayan@....com,
gautham.shenoy@....com, Calvin Ong <calvin.ong@....com>,
stable@...r.kernel.org, regressions@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: processor_idle: Skip dummy wait for processors
based on the Zen microarchitecture
On 9/20/22 23:36, K Prateek Nayak wrote:
> + /*
> + * No delay is needed if we are in guest or on a processor
> + * based on the Zen microarchitecture.
> + */
> + if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_HYPERVISOR) || boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_ZEN))
> return;
In the end, the delay is because of buggy, circa 2006 chipsets? So, we
use a CPU vendor specific check to approximate that the chipset is
recent and not affected by the bug? If so, is there no better way to
check for a newer chipset than this?
Do X86_FEATURE_ZEN CPUs just have unusually painful
inl(acpi_fadt.xpm_tmr_blk.address) implementations? Is that why we
noticed all of a sudden?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists