From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <42C334DF.20203@yahoo.com.au> Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 09:55:11 +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: >>>+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. > > > Ummm ... no. The processor will stay in the low power state until > an unmasked external interrupt occurs (or one of several other more > intrusive events like reset, machine check, PMI occur). > OK, so ia64's got the interrupt race as well I think? I don't suppose safe_halt can be called with interrupts off safely, like the i386 function of the same name? -- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com