Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation intest_and_set_bit_lock if possible

[Eric Dumazet]

Le vendredi 25 mars 2011 Ã 00:56 +0100, Andi Kleen a Ãcrit :
> > never EVER seen any good explanation of why that particular sh*t
> > argument would b true. It seems to be purely about politics, where
> > some idiotic vendor (namely HP) has convinced Intel that they really
> > need it. To the point where some engineers seem to have bought into
> > the whole thing and actually believe that fairy tale ("firmware can do
> > better" - hah! They must be feeding people some bad drugs at the
> > cafeteria)
> 
> For the record I don't think it's a good idea for the BIOS to do 
> this (and I'm not aware of any engineer who does),  
> but I think Linux should do better than just disabling PMU use when 
> this happens.
> 
> However I suspect taking over SCI would cause endless problems
> and is very likely not a good idea.

I tried many different changes in BIOS and all failed (the machine is
damn slow at boot, this takes age).

I am stuck :(

Thanks


--
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/