From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Message-ID: <429994BA.3040806@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Sun, 29 May 2005 20:08:58 +1000
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Lots of possible arch breakage in cpu_idle!!
References: <4299523F.90502@yahoo.com.au> <20050529094246.GM2057@holomorphy.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050529094246.GM2057@holomorphy.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>
Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
List-ID: <linux-arch.vger.kernel.org>

William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 03:25:19PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
>>Your cpu_idle routines need to obey the following rules:
> 
> 
> The cpu_idle() routines you suggest return, which is "unexpected"
> (AFAICT even on i386). Mind explaining how is this supposed to work?
> 

Eek! They shouldn't.

That would be a bug... but I don't see it (in i386)

i386's mwait_idle, default_idle, poll_idle, etc. of course will
return (when need_resched() goes high). Then cpu_idle() will then
call schedule()

Or did the list of rules erroneously imply that it should return?

Anyway, thanks for casting your eye over this, much appreciated.

Nick
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com