From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com>
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,
hpa@zytor.com, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu,
vgoyal@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:13:25 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87r4oloopm.fsf@xmission.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121026.122406.13396329.d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> (HATAYAMA Daisuke's message of "Fri, 26 Oct 2012 12:24:06 +0900 (JST)")
HATAYAMA Daisuke <d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com> writes:
> From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP
> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 17:35:47 -0700
>
>> On 10/22/2012 02:29 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> It isn't fuzzy memories... this was done as late as 1-2 months ago. I
>> just don't know the details.
>>
>> Fenghua, could you help fill us in?
>>
>
> I overlooked completely the fact that BSP flag is rewritable.
>
> I tried Eric's suggestion using attached test programs and saw it
> worked fine at least on the three cpus around me below:
>
> - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 4820 @ 2.00GHz
> - Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E7- 8870 @ 2.40GHz
> - Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 1.80GHz
> - 32 bits CPU
>
> Next I found the description about this in 8.4.2, IASDM Vol.3:
>
> The MP initialization protocol imposes the following requirements
> and restrictions on the system:
>
> * The MP protocol is executed only after a power-up or RESET. If the
> MP protocol has completed and a BSP is chosen, subsequent INITs
> (either to a specific processor or system wide) do not cause the
> MP protocol to be repeated. Instead, each logical processor
> examines its BSP flag (in the IA32_APIC_BASE MSR) to determine
> whether it should execute the BIOS boot-strap code (if it is the
> BSP) or enter a wait-for-SIPI state (if it is an AP).
>
> So this is no longer undocumented behaviour for recent cpus, I think.
The underdocumented bit is the ability to clear the flag.
And of course these are processor specific registers.
> Considering these, I'll make a patch to clear BSP flag at appropreate
> position in kernel boot-up code. OTOH, according to the discussion, it
> was reported that clearing BSP flag affected some BIOSes. To deal with
> this, I'll prepare a kernel option to decide whether to clear BSP flag
> or not.
>
> Does anyone have any comments now? Or please comment after I submit a
> new patch.
I think you are on right track with preparing some patches, and this
certainly looks like worth experimenting with.
At least for i386 the code need to verify you have a cpu new enough to
have an APIC_BASE_MSR, but I don't think that is going to be hard.
Eric
_______________________________________________
kexec mailing list
kexec@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-26 4:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-10-16 4:35 [PATCH v1 0/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-16 4:35 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] x86, apic: Introduce boot_cpu_is_bsp indicating whether boot cpu is BSP or not HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-16 4:35 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] x86, apic: Disable BSP if boot cpu is AP HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-22 20:04 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-22 20:16 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-22 20:31 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-22 20:33 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-22 20:38 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-22 20:43 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-22 20:47 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-22 21:29 ` Eric W. Biederman
2012-10-23 0:35 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-26 3:24 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-26 4:13 ` Eric W. Biederman [this message]
2013-03-11 1:07 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-03-11 2:13 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2013-03-11 4:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-16 4:51 ` [PATCH v1 0/2] " Yu, Fenghua
2012-10-16 5:03 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-16 5:14 ` Yu, Fenghua
2012-10-16 6:38 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-22 16:02 ` H. Peter Anvin
2012-10-16 5:15 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-17 14:12 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-10-18 3:08 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-18 14:14 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-10-19 3:20 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-19 15:17 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-10-22 6:32 ` HATAYAMA Daisuke
2012-10-22 18:37 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-10-22 17:10 ` Michael Holzheu
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=87r4oloopm.fsf@xmission.com \
--to=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=d.hatayama@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=grant.likely@secretlab.ca \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=kexec@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rob.herring@calxeda.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=x86@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox