Re: [PATCH 0/1] speeding up cpu_up()

[Aravind Gopalakrishnan]

On 5/1/15 5:47 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Fri, May 01, 2015 at 02:42:39PM -0700, Len Brown wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 12:15 AM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > So instead of playing games with an ancient delay, I'd suggest we
> > > install the 10 msec INIT assertion wait as a platform quirk instead,
> > > and activate it for all CPUs/systems that we think might need it, with
> > > a sufficiently robust and future-proof quirk cutoff condition.
> > >
> > > New systems won't have the quirk active and thus won't have to have
> > > this delay configurable either.
> > Okay, at this time, I think the quirk would apply to:
> >
> > 1. Intel family 5 (original pentium) -- some may actually need the quirk
> > 2. Intel family F (pentium4) -- mostly b/c I don't want to bother
> > finding/testing p4
> > 3. All AMD (happy to narrow down, if somebody can speak for AMD)
> Aravind and I could probably test on a couple of AMD boxes to narrow down.
>
> @Aravind, see here:
>
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/87d69aab88c14d65ae1e7be55050d1b689b59b4b.1429402494.git.len.brown@xxxxxxxxx
>
> You could ask around whether a timeout is needed between the assertion
> and deassertion of INIT done by the BSP when booting other cores.

Sure, I'll ask around and try mdelay(0) on some systems as well.
I can gather Fam15h, Fam16h but don't have K8's or older.

Will let you know how it goes.

-Aravind.

> If not, we probably should convert, at least modern AMD machines, to the
> no-delay default.

--
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/