From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: bind workqueues to CPU 0 to avoid SMI corruption Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 04:17:35 +0100 Message-ID: <20090730031735.GA1202@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20090729215425.23674.80263.stgit@bob.kio> <20090730024300.GA30451@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> <20090730025554.GD26389@srcf.ucam.org> <20090730031348.GA24959@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:42916 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753356AbZG3DRi (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Jul 2009 23:17:38 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090730031348.GA24959@sli10-desk.sh.intel.com> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Shaohua Li Cc: Bjorn Helgaas , Len Brown , "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 11:13:48AM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote: > ACPICA isn't designed for performance. If it has performance issue, it should > already have. Yeah. My point was just that we have some customers who like tuning systems heavily - I suspect they'd prefer to be able to control whether or not ACPI is running entirely on cpu 0 or not. As you say, it should make little difference in the real world but some people do have very specialised requirements. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org