Re: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86:avoid check hlt if no timer interrupts)

[Alan Cox]

On Fri, 07 May 2010 15:27:34 -0700
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 05/07/2010 03:24 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> >> I'd be cool skipping it for family 5 or newer.  I'm just wondering if we
> >> should kill it completely -- IIRC it was only a handful of 386/486
> >> systems which had problems, usually due to marginal power supplies which
> >> couldn't handle the noise of a variable load (DOS not having any power
> >> management would run at a reliable 100% load) -- that's not exactly the
> >> type of systems which would have survived to modern day.
> > 
> > Also SMM and hardware bugs on some platforms - Cyrix MediaGX 5510 for
> > example where a hlt at the wrong moment during ATA transfers hung the box
> > until power cycle. But all old old stuff.
> 
> I think family < 5 seems a reasonable cutoff.
> 
> Note that the ATA transfer bug you describe above would not be caught by
> the existing check.

MediaGX5510 would I'm pretty certain be 486 reporting anyway
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/