* Thomas Gleixner <t...@linutronix.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 20 May 2015, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Borislav Petkov <b...@suse.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 01:11:20PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > - MWAITX takes a 'timeout' parameter, but otherwise behaves exactly
> > > > like MWAIT: i.e. once idle it won't exit idle on its own
> > >
> > > Let me quote the commit message:
> > >
> > > "MWAITT, another name is MWAITX (MWAIT with extensions), has a
> > > configurable timer that causes MWAITX to exit on expiration."
> >
> > Ah. A useful skill that is, being able to read.
> >
> > > You need to set the second bit in ECX to enable the timer.
> > >
> > > I guess if you don't, then you get normal MWAIT but then you don't
> > > need the timeout either...
> >
> > Yeah.
> >
> > So if it's a true timeout then we could use it to implement
> > irq-less timers: that's actually pretty useful, because it could
> > be faster than getting a local APIC timer irq, etc.
>
> Uurgh, NO NO NO!
I know, I know :-)
The XP PIC was a nasty, broken hardware timer, and all x86 timer
generations after that made the situation even worse.
> We have enough trouble with non functional timers already, we do not
> need another variant of those.
>
> We can supply the estimated sleep time though if that helps the PM
> controller underneath to select a state. That's more or less what we
> do in the governors as well.
That's not what appears to be happening here though: the MWAITX will
return after the timeout.
Which isn't really useful unless we use it to drive timers.
So 'lets not use it' might be the sane answer.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
