From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758293Ab0EGU5Y (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 16:57:24 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:57561 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756082Ab0EGU5V (ORCPT ); Fri, 7 May 2010 16:57:21 -0400 Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 13:54:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Arjan van de Ven cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , Jacob Pan , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Alek Du , Feng Tang , LKML , Jacob Pan , Arjan van de Ven Subject: Re: RFD: Should we remove the HLT check? (was Re: [PATCH 1/8] x86: avoid check hlt if no timer interrupts) In-Reply-To: <4BE4791B.1060304@linux.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <1273254108-3234-1-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <1273254108-3234-2-git-send-email-jacob.jun.pan@linux.intel.com> <4BE478C1.2060602@zytor.com> <4BE4791B.1060304@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 7 May 2010, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On 5/7/2010 13:32, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > > > I really wish I knew the exact systems affected by the HLT bug. If I > > remember correctly, it was some 386 systems -- or possibly 486 systems > > as well -- a very long time ago. This test just provides a diagnosis if > > the system really is bad (it hangs with an obvious message) at the cost > > of some 40 ms to the system boot time. I suspect C1 (HLT) being broken > > is not anywhere close to the predominant power management problem in the > > current day, and as such I'm wondering if this particular test hasn't > > outlived its usefulness. > > > > Thoughts? > > we could at least hide it behind the "don't run on pentium or newer" config > options.. Ack. That would take care of all relevant machines. Linus