On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 04:37:27PM -0500, Len Brown wrote:
> From: Len Brown <len.br...@intel.com>
>
> Remove 32-bit x86 a cmdline param "no-hlt",
> and the cpuinfo_x86.hlt_works_ok that it sets.
>
> If a user wants to avoid HLT, then "idle=poll"
> is much more useful, as it avoids invocation of HLT
> in idle, while "no-hlt" failed to do so.
>
> Indeed, hlt_works_ok was consulted in only 3 places.
>
> First, in /proc/cpuinfo where "hlt_bug yes"
> would be printed if and only if the user booted
> the system with "no-hlt" -- as there was no other code
> to set that flag.
>
> Second, check_hlt() would not invoke halt() if "no-hlt"
> were on the cmdline.
>
> Third, it was consulted in stop_this_cpu(), which is invoked
> by native_machine_halt()/reboot_interrupt()/smp_stop_nmi_callback() --
> all cases where the machine is being shutdown/reset.
> The flag was not consulted in the more frequently invoked
> play_dead()/hlt_play_dead() used in processor offline and suspend.
>
> Since Linux-3.0 there has been a run-time notice upon "no-hlt" invocations
> indicating that it would be removed in 2012.
>
> Signed-off-by: Len Brown <len.br...@intel.com>
> Cc: x...@kernel.org
> ---
> v2: remove also check_hlt()
[ … ]
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> index 3286a92..e280253 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/proc.c
> @@ -28,7 +28,6 @@ static void show_cpuinfo_misc(struct seq_file *m, struct
> cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> {
> seq_printf(m,
> "fdiv_bug\t: %s\n"
> - "hlt_bug\t\t: %s\n"
Are we fine with changing /proc/cpuinfo output? We tend to consider it
an API to userspace, judging by past experience...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Sent from a fat crate under my desk. Formatting is fine.
--
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
