From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <42C3310C.8070004@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:38:52 +1000 From: Nick Piggin MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Remaining arch problems in cpu_idle References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: "Luck, Tony" Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , David Mosberger List-ID: Luck, Tony wrote: >>h8300, ia64, and sh64 still have possible outstanding issues, >>which I've put at the end of the Documentation/ file. It >>would be nice to get these looked at. > > > +ia64 - is safe_halt call racy vs interrupts? (does it sleep?) (See #4a) > > safe_halt() makes a call to PAL[1] to go to a lower power state. It does > not do anything that would require a sleep. > So it won't need an interrupt to be revived out of that state? Thank you Tony, I'll take ia64 off the list. The other change I made to ia64 is to use TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG to inhibit wakeup IPIs to idle threads - is this something that looks acceptable? Clearing TIF_POLLING_NRFLAG from around safe_halt() in my patch is superfluous if safe_halt doesn't require an interrupt to wake up - I'll remove that hunk. Thanks, Nick -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com