On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 12:56:47AM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/20/2014 12:26 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:45:43PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> >> +static void mwait_idle(void)
> >> +{
> >> + mwait_idle_with_hints(0, 0);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>
> >> The reason the patch above will crash Core2 machines is because
> >> core2 machines don't support mwait_idle_with_hints().
> >>
> >> The calling sequence for old and new MWAIT instructions is different.
> >> The former must be invoked with interrupts enabled,
> >> and the later can be invoked with interrupts disabled,
> >> which is a feature that Linux takes advantage of.
> >
> > What old and new? They're the same byte sequence: 0x0f 0x01 0xc9
> >
> > And your 'old' __sti_mwait(0,0) has the exact same arguments as
> > mwait_idle_with_hints(0,0).
> >
>
> The difference is the STI!
So do the local_irq_enable(); mwait_idle_with_hints(0,0); thing.
But that's entirely different from saying that core2 doesn't support
mwait_idle_with_hints because its a different instruction.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-next" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
