From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1755856Ab3LSSTz (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:19:55 -0500
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]:55141 "EHLO
	mail-we0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1753757Ab3LSSTw (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 Dec 2013 13:19:52 -0500
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:19:48 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com>, stable@vger.kernel.org,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Mike Galbraith <efault@gmx.de>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 idle: repair large-server 50-watt idle-power
 regression
Message-ID: <20131219181948.GD32508@gmail.com>
References: <baff264285f6e585df757d58b17788feabc68918.1387403066.git.len.brown@intel.com>
 <20131219122257.GC11279@gmail.com>
 <52B316FF.50906@zytor.com>
 <20131219160210.GA28426@gmail.com>
 <52B31B21.6010901@zytor.com>
 <20131219162136.GM16438@laptop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <52B323BE.7090108@zytor.com>
 <20131219170741.GB30382@gmail.com>
 <52B33640.3020204@zytor.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <52B33640.3020204@zytor.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org


* H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:

> On 12/19/2013 09:07 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > 
> > Likewise, having a barrier before the MONITOR looks sensible as 
> > well. Having it _after_ monitor looks weird and is probably wrong. 
> > [It might have been the effects of someone seeing the spurious 
> > wakeup problems with realizing the true source, or so.]
> 
> Does anyone know the history of this barrier after the monitor?  I 
> know Len is looking for a minimal patchset that can go into -stable, 
> and it seems prudent to not preturb the code more than necessary, 
> but going forward it would be nice to know...

For the minimal fix I don't think we should change it - but for v3.14 
it looks like a speedup for the from-idle codepath, which is 
performance sensitive.

( It would also be nice to know whether MONITOR loads that cacheline 
  into the CPUs cache, and in what state it loads it. )

Thanks,

	Ingo