RE: [PATCH] more robust halt_light

From: David Mosberger <davidm_at_napali.hpl.hp.com>
Date: 2004-03-04 09:45:11
>>>>> On Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:08:00 -0700, Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@hp.com> said:

  Alex> I was curious about that myself, but I thought I remembered
  Alex> from Stephane that the perf counters didn't really recover
  Alex> from a PAL_HALT_LIGHT on McKinley.  If that's not the case,
  Alex> maybe we can move the PAL check into perfmon code, and it can
  Alex> selectively disable it as it needs via the disable_hlt API.  I
  Alex> assume there are some cases were perfmon wouldn't need to
  Alex> disable halt_light on working PAL, so the rev check might not
  Alex> go away.

Can we get rid of the CONFIG option too?  Or do folks who care (too?)
much about wake-up latency prefer to turn off a CONFIG option over
booting with nohlt?

	--david
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Received on Wed Mar 3 17:46:06 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 2005-08-02 09:20:24 EST