From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from out01.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.231]) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1TQPZ5-0005w4-Mu for kexec@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 21:29:40 +0000 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) References: <20121016043357.20003.5885.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <20121016043528.20003.601.stgit@localhost6.localdomain6> <873916i88t.fsf@xmission.com> <5085A9A8.5020004@zytor.com> <87fw56fduo.fsf@xmission.com> <5085AD7D.106@zytor.com> <87a9vedyqe.fsf@xmission.com> <5085B0D0.9020508@zytor.com> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 14:29:25 -0700 In-Reply-To: <5085B0D0.9020508@zytor.com> (H. Peter Anvin's message of "Mon, 22 Oct 2012 13:47:12 -0700") Message-ID: <87mwze8abu.fsf@xmission.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: kexec-bounces@lists.infradead.org Errors-To: kexec-bounces+dwmw2=infradead.org@lists.infradead.org To: "H. Peter Anvin" Cc: len.brown@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, kexec@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rob.herring@calxeda.com, grant.likely@secretlab.ca, HATAYAMA Daisuke , tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, vgoyal@redhat.com "H. Peter Anvin" writes: > On 10/22/2012 01:43 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> The reason the BIOSen go wonky is the INIT cause the cpu to go to the >> reset vector at 4G-16 bytes. So it is very much expected that the >> BIOSen start acting like you just came out of reset. >> >> If you can clear bit 8 of IA32_APIC_BASE_MSR and inform the cpu to not >> send the cpu to 4G-16 bytes and instead send the cpu into it's magic >> startup-ipi-wait mode then the BIOSen will not be involved on that path. >> >> It is a simple question of does the cpu support clearing bit 8 >> meaningfully. >> >> If the cpu allows bit 8 to be cleared and sends the cpu to the reset >> vector on receipt of the INIT IPI I would call that a deviation from the >> x86 cpu specification. >> >> So clearing bit 8 is not a question about BIOSen it is a question of can >> we avoid the BIOSen, by using an obscure under-documented cpu feature. >> > > As I said, I thought Fenghua tried that but it didn't work, experimentally. Fair enough. You described the problem with clearing bit 8 in a weird way. If the best we can muster are fuzzy memories it may be worth revisiting. Perhaps it works on enough cpu models to be interesting. Eric _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list kexec@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec