From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] x86: speed cpu_up by quirking cpu_init_udelay
Date: Fri, 8 May 2015 09:51:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150508075111.GA5403@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <170f6f6e9ac4aa4d8ec1ed5000bee95463897337.1431066425.git.len.brown@intel.com>
* Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org> wrote:
> From: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>
>
> Modern processor familes are on a white-list to remove
> the costly cpu_init_udelay 10000. Unknown processor families
> get the traditional 10ms delay in cpu_up().
>
> This seemed more efficient than forcing modern processors
> to exhaustively search a black-list having all the old
> processor families that should have a 10ms delay.
> For not only are new processor familes infrequently added,
> the white list also allows a delay other than 0, if needed.
> static unsigned int init_udelay = UDELAY_10MS_DEFAULT;
>
> +static const struct x86_cpu_id init_udelay_ids[] = {
> + { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 0x6, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x16, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x15, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x14, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x12, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x11, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0x10, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + { X86_VENDOR_AMD, 0xF, X86_MODEL_ANY, X86_FEATURE_ANY, 0 },
> + {}
> +};
So since especially AMD likes to iterate the family upwards, why not
make this a simple open ended check:
if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL &&
boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 6 ||
boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD &&
boot_cpu_data.x86 >= 15) {
... 0 delay ...
}
... which is much smaller and more future proof?
Thanks,
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-08 7:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-08 6:37 [PATCH 0/2 v2] speeding up cpu_up() Len Brown
2015-05-08 6:37 ` [PATCH 1/2] x86: replace cpu_up hard-coded mdelay with variable udelay Len Brown
2015-05-08 6:37 ` [PATCH 2/2] x86: speed cpu_up by quirking cpu_init_udelay Len Brown
2015-05-08 7:51 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2015-05-08 8:23 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-05-08 8:32 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-05-08 18:15 ` Len Brown
2015-05-08 18:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2015-05-09 7:22 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-09 7:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-05-09 8:04 ` Borislav Petkov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150508075111.GA5403@gmail.com \
--to=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).