From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S964882AbWGEQy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:54:59 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S964887AbWGEQy7 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:54:59 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:11708 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964882AbWGEQy6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Jul 2006 12:54:58 -0400 Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 09:54:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: "H. Peter Anvin" cc: Andi Kleen , Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>, Andrew Morton , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch] i386: early pagefault handler In-Reply-To: <44ABEB20.2010702@zytor.com> Message-ID: References: <200607050745_MC3-1-C42B-9937@compuserve.com> <44ABEB20.2010702@zytor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 5 Jul 2006, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I don't remember what the failure mode was, though; didn't think it was > recursive faulting. I think we should probably remove the test. The failure mode was simply that a machine with the "halt" idle loop simply didn't work, and would lock up. The most likely reason for that is probably just a bad CPU power VRM, and the potential high current fluctuations, not so much any CPU bug itself. Anybody with that old a CPU will have learnt to to say "no-hlt" or whatever the kernel command line is, and we could probably retire the silly old hlt check (which I'm not even sure really ever worked). Linus