:> In acpi_cpu_idle_c1, it does: :> :> sti :> hlt :> :> shouldn't there be a NOP in there so that interrupts :> are guaranteed on? : :I think your reading of it is right.. :but I also think that if it was ALWAYS right we'd see processors :go idle and never wake up again.... :Since this doesn't seem to happen, maybe ther eis a bug in the emulator? : :We can always add a nop I guess and see what happens.. No no no no! The whole point is for interrupts to be disabled when the HLT instruction *begins* execution (they're only disabled for one cycle). If you do: sti; nop; hlt then an interrupt may occur before the HLT instruction is executed. The HLT instruction is then executed even though the interrupt might have scheduled something. In otherwords, you will wind up in a halted state with schedulable threads pending. When you 'STI; HLT' the halt is entered atomicaly while interrupts are still disabled, so no interrupt can squeeze. Then interrupts will be enabled and HLT will resume when the next interrupt occurs. CLI; <check to see if any threads can be scheduled> YES-> RETURN NO (STI;HLT). -MattReceived on Thu Jun 17 2004 - 18:14:13 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:57 UTC