lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: [PATCH] idle using PNI monitor/mwait
Date
From
Thermal advantages may be there and like "pause" they would be
implementation specific.

Thanks
Sunil

-----Original Message-----
From: Zwane Mwaikambo [mailto:zwane@arm.linux.org.uk]
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 11:42 PM
To: Nakajima, Jun
Cc: Linus Torvalds; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Saxena, Sunil;
Mallick, Asit K; Pallipadi, Venkatesh
Subject: RE: [PATCH] idle using PNI monitor/mwait

On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Nakajima, Jun wrote:

> That's right. If we have a lot of high-contention locks in the kernel,
> we need to fix the code first, to get benefits for the other
> architectures.
>
> "mwait" granularity (64-byte, for example) is given by the cpuid
> instruction, and we did not use it because 1) it's unlikely that the
> other fields of the task structure are modified when it's idle, 2) the
> processor needs to check the flag after mwait anyway, to avoid waking
up
> with a false signal caused by other break events (i.e. mwait is a
hint).

It could still be very handy for polling loops of the form;

while (!ready)
__asm__ ("pause;");

Jun would there be any thermal advantages over using poll and pause ?

Thanks,
Zwane
--
function.linuxpower.ca
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.049 / U:0.472 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site