On Fri, Jun 28, 2024, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Sean, > > On 6/28/24 3:55 PM, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:16:10 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote: > > > Changes from v8: > > > - v8: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/cover.1718043121.git.reinette.chatre@xxxxxxxxx/ > > > - Many changes to new udelay() utility patch as well as the APIC bus > > > frequency test aimed to make it more robust (additional ASSERTs, > > > consistent types, eliminate duplicate code, etc.) and useful with > > > support for more user configuration. Please refer to individual patches for > > > detailed changes. > > > - Series applies cleanly to next branch of kvm-x86 with HEAD > > > e4e9e1067138e5620cf0500c3e5f6ebfb9d322c8. > > > > > > [...] > > > > Applied to kvm-x86 misc, with all the changes mentioned in my earlier replies. > > I'm out next week, and don't want to merge the KVM changes without these tests, > > hence the rushed application. > > > > Please holler if you disagree with anything (or if I broke something). I won't > > respond until July 8th at the earliest, but worst case scenario we can do fixup > > patches after 6.11-rc1. > > Thank you very much for taking the time to make the changes and apply the patches. > All the changes look good to me and passes my testing. > > Now that the x86 udelay() utility no longer use cpu_relax(), should ARM > and RISC-V's udelay() be modified to match in this regard? I can prepare > (unable to test) changes for you to consider on your return. I don't think so? IIUC, arm64's "yield", used by cpu_relax() doesn't trigger the "on spin" exists. Such exist are only triggered by "wfet" and friends.
