Re: [PATCH] 2.6.1 Hyperthread smart "nice" 2

[Andrew Morton]

Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> * Con Kolivas <kernel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > At least it appears Intel are well aware of the priority problem, but
> > full priority support across logical cores is not likely. However I
> > guess these new instructions are probably enough to work with if
> > someone can do the coding.
> 
> these instructions can be used in the idle=poll code instead of rep-nop. 
> This way idle-wakeup can be done via the memory bus in essence, and the
> idle threads wont waste CPU time. (right now idle=poll wastes lots of
> cycles on HT boxes and is thus unusable.)

The code to do this was merged quite a while ago.  See
arch/i386/kernel/process.c:mwait_idle().

I was hoping to see a spinlock patch using mwait(), but nothing yet..
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/