[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZzWFP74YTGj5m6il@BLRRASHENOY1.amd.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2024 10:36:07 +0530
From: "Gautham R. Shenoy" <gautham.shenoy@....com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Patryk Wlazlyn <patryk.wlazlyn@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pm@...r.kernel.org,
rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, len.brown@...el.com,
artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] x86/smp native_play_dead: Prefer
cpuidle_play_dead() over mwait_play_dead()
Hello Dave,
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 08:14:08AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 11/13/24 03:41, Gautham R. Shenoy wrote:
> > + /*
> > + * This is ugly. But AMD processors don't prefer MWAIT based
> > + * C-states when processors are offlined.
> > + */
> > + if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD ||
> > + boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
> > + return -ENODEV;
>
> Can we get an X86_FEATURE for this, please? Either a positive one:
>
> X86_FEATURE_MWAIT_OK_FOR_OFFLINE
>
> or a negative one:
>
> X86_FEATURE_MWAIT_BUSTED_FOR_OFFLINE
>
Sure. That makes sense.
> ... with better names.
>
> Or even a helper. Because if you add this AMD||HYGON check, it'll be at
> _least_ the second one of these for the same logical reason.
Fair enough. Will add that.
--
Thanks and Regards
gautham.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists