Re: [PATCH RFC] x86: avoid atomic operation in test_and_set_bit_lockif possible

[Ingo Molnar]

* Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Le vendredi 25 mars 2011 à 00:56 +0100, Andi Kleen a écrit :
> > > 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 :(

Could you please try the patch below?

Thanks,

	Ingo

------------------->