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

[Eric Dumazet]

Le vendredi 25 mars 2011 Ã 10:32 +0100, Ingo Molnar a Ãcrit :
> * Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 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 :(
> 
> Could you please try the patch below?

This obviously works, but you probably need to make a full pass to make
sure we dont have a MSR failure -this should return false in this case.





--
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/