Venki, On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 05:15:14PM -0700, Venki Pallipadi wrote: > > > x86-64 expects all idle handlers to enable interrupts before returning > > > from > > > idle handler. This is due to enter_idle(), exit_idle() races. Make > > > cpuidle_idle_call() confirm to this when there is no pm_idle_old. > > > > > > Also, cpuidle look at the return values of attch_driver() and set > > > current_driver to NULL if attach fails on all CPUs. > > > > My vote would be to instead remove enter_idle() and exit_idle() from > > x86-64, just as was done with i386. Performance monitoring > > infrastructure shouldn't be interfering with the idle interrupt > > delivery, as that could only hurt performance... Besides, there's > > probably a better way of doing this than an idle notifier anyway. > > > > Agreed. I did not like local_irq_enable() in cpuidle either, but added it > anyway as it was a corner case when cpuidle is active and no driver is > active and not a common case. I thought we will have it as a bandaid solution > until enter_idle, exit_idle is around. > > Andi/Stephane: What are the plans around enter_idle exit_idle in x86-64. > Is it still being used by perfmon for x86-64 arch? > The next kernel patch for Perfmon will not make use of the idle notification anymore on any platform.
-- -Stephane - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/