RE: [PATCH] idle using PNI monitor/mwait

From: Saxena, Sunil (sunil.saxena@intel.com)
Date: Wed Jul 09 2003 - 20:17:32 EST

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/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 15 2003 - 22:00:33 EST