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

[H. Peter Anvin]

On 05/07/2010 01:54 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> 
> On Fri, 7 May 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> 
>> On 5/7/2010 13:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>>>
>>> I really wish I knew the exact systems affected by the HLT bug.  If I
>>> remember correctly, it was some 386 systems -- or possibly 486 systems
>>> as well -- a very long time ago.  This test just provides a diagnosis if
>>> the system really is bad (it hangs with an obvious message) at the cost
>>> of some 40 ms to the system boot time.  I suspect C1 (HLT) being broken
>>> is not anywhere close to the predominant power management problem in the
>>> current day, and as such I'm wondering if this particular test hasn't
>>> outlived its usefulness.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> we could at least hide it behind the "don't run on pentium or newer" config
>> options..
> 
> Ack. That would take care of all relevant machines.
> 

Sounds like a plan.  Jacob, do you want to submit a new patch (bypassing
this check if boot_cpu_info.x86 >= 5)?

	-hpa

--
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/