On 10.11.2011 15:55, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:33:06AM +0100, Stefan Bader wrote:
>> On 09.11.2011 18:58, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 03:57:15PM +0200, Stefan Bader wrote:
>>>> On 26.10.2011 15:48, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>>>>>>> What about using the cpuidle_disabled() functionality and adhere to
>>>>>>> that?
>>>>>>> As so:
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .. snip..
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >From reading over it, this should work. Though I would be interested to
>>>>>> >hear
>>>>>> from the linux-acpi folks. Also to double check that calling pm_idle when
>>>>>> cpuidle.off was specified really is what is intended.
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh yeah, definitly need the input from linux-acpi folks. And also to be
>>>>> actually
>>>>> tested :-)
>>>>
>>>> I can volunteer to do the testing. But I am lazy enough to hold back a bit
>>>> as
>>>> someone may tell us this is completely the wrong way to fix it. :)
>>>
>>> So the other option is to use 'idle=halt' on the Linux command line. That
>>> should
>>> provide the workaround for the folks reporting this (is there a BZ for it?).
>>>
>> Believe upstream bz is still down. Got the issue reported here, though:
>>
>> http://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/881076
>
> Ok, added that to the patch description.
>>
>> Hm, as a workaround probably. I guess it could be added when the test images
>> are
>> done. Unfortunately, when running your image in the cloud it is kind of hard
>> to
>> recover. Even more as you could have tested on an AMD based host.
>
> Sadly my AMD boxes did not explode when I tested Len's patches :-(.
No, to my knowledge AMD CPUs do not have mwait. So the only alternate idle to
happen would be the e400 aware one (which is basically default_idle with
conditionally programming a broadcast timer interrupt to get out of c1e). I saw
this happen on my box, too. And there was no visible badness caused by it.
>>
>> Wonder whether it would be an option to automatically mask the mwait
>> capability
>> off when running in paravirt mode...
>
> We could, but why not strive to do it correctly first.
Just seemed (from looking at those replies about wanting mwait idle even when
cpuidle is disabled) that there is a slight controversy about what correctly is.
I personally would also think that a state of cpuidle disabled means no special
idle function. But that does not have to be the correct interpretation.
So I was reasoning that if the mwait function gets selected because the caps say
its available, but it does not work in paravirt, then maybe claiming its
availability is wrong as well.
Of course there is also the initial question about calling a generic function
and if that fails call the idle function hook directly. Which, because having
cpuidle disabled is returned as an error, ended up calling the hook directly
again. I really have trouble understanding the reasoning there...
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home