From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, macro@linux-mips.org,
yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86,apic: Use logical OR in noop-write operation
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:10:24 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B1EB2B0.4000204@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091208155557.326359748@openvz.org>
On 12/08/2009 07:53 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> For apic noop'ified we have to use logical OR statement,
> otherwise any write on systems shipped with 82489DX
> (where apic presence bit can't be retrieved via cpuid)
> will not trigger the warning which is not desired.
>
> In turn noop'ified read operation remains using logical
> AND statement. This will catch _only_ future code bugs
> since:
>
> 1) The old 32bit systems without apic presence bit use
> disable_apic only as a flag that chip was turned off
> via boot option but not due to MP-table (BIOS) bug where
> we may try to re-enable apic via MSR registers. The further
> SMP setup code already prepared for a such situation
> (ie it disables SMP support) and do not issue write
> operations but still needs to issue apic_read. So instead
> of deforming code with "if" we just allow reads until
> SMP support gets disabled. But even then we still need
> apic_read issued on a such machine at shutdown procedure.
>
> 2) x86-64 at moment properly uses cpu_has_apic and turn
> this feature off as only chip is disabled together
> with disable_apic flag.
>
Could you clarify the question I asked yesterday: how is the "or"
different from just warning unconditionally (which would at least be a
lot more clear)? Can the situation that !cpu_has_apic && disable_apic
actually happen and we *still* end up in apic_write?
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-12-08 20:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-12-08 15:53 [patch 0/2] apic snipptes on latest -tip/master Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 15:53 ` [patch 1/2] x86,mcheck: Thermal monitoring depends on APIC being enabled Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-09 14:56 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 15:53 ` [patch 2/2] x86,apic: Use logical OR in noop-write operation Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 20:10 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2009-12-08 20:26 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 20:48 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-09 15:50 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4B1EB2B0.4000204@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=yinghai@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.