Message-ID: <54DBE154.5040204@eng.utah.edu>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 16:10:12 -0700
From: Scotty Bauer <sbauer@eng.utah.edu>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
CC: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        x86@kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/smpboot: check if CLFLUSH is actually necessary
References: <54CBF6F9.5040508@eng.utah.edu> <54DBCFD6.8000509@zytor.com>
In-Reply-To: <54DBCFD6.8000509@zytor.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1025
Lines: 21


On 02/11/2015 02:55 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 01/30/2015 01:26 PM, Scotty Bauer wrote:
>> mwait_play_dead previously issued a CLFLUSH to work around a bug on
>> some xeon processors. We can now determine if the CPU is a buggy CPU.
>> This patch checks if if we're on a buggy CPU which allows non-buggy
>> cpu's to eliminate the CLFLUSH.
> Here is my first question: does this matter at all?  Otherwise I don't
> see a point.
>
> 	-hpa
>
>
Do you get the same effect? Sure, but is the previous way the right way to do it? In my opinion no, but I'm not the one merging code its up to someone more experienced to determine if the change is warranted. The change is slightly faster on non-buggy cpu, but like you mention, is that relevant when the machine is going into idle?


--
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/