Re: [PATCH] apic: fix kvm build on UP without IOAPIC

Michael S. Tsirkin
2012-07-08T20:56:25Z

On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 04:12:23PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Jul 06, 2012 at 01:13:14PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >
> > > * H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 07/01/2012 08:05 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > >On UP i386, when APIC is disabled
> > > > ># CONFIG_X86_UP_APIC is not set
> > > > ># CONFIG_PCI_IOAPIC is not set
> > > > >
> > > > >code looking at apicdrivers never has any effect but it
> > > > >still gets compiled in. In particular, this causes
> > > > >build failures with kvm, but it generally bloats the kernel
> > > > >unnecessarily.
> > > > >
> > > > >Fix by defining both __apicdrivers and __apicdrivers_end
> > > > >to be NULL when CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC is unset: I verified
> > > > >that as the result any loop scanning __apicdrivers gets optimized out by
> > > > >the compiler.
> > > > >
> > > > >Warning: a .config with apic disabled doesn't seem to boot
> > > > >for me (even without this patch). Still verifying why,
> > > > >meanwhile this patch is compile-tested only.
> > > > >
> > > > >Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> > > > >---
> > > > >
> > > > >Note: if this patch makes sense, can x86 maintainers
> > > > >please ACK applying it through the kvm tree, since that is
> > > > >where we see the issue that it addresses?
> > > > >Avi, Marcelo, maybe you can carry this in kvm/linux-next as a temporary
> > > > >measure so that linux-next builds?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'm not happy about that as a workflow, but since you guys have an
> > > > immediate problem I guess we can do that.
> > >
> > > I'm rather unhappy about this workflow - we've got quite a few
> > > apic bits in the x86 tree this cycle as well and need extra
> > > external interaction, not.
> > >
> > > Which KVM tree commit caused this, could someone please give a
> > > lkml link or quote it here? It's not referenced in the fix patch
> > > either.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Ingo
> >
> > This tree (kvm.git next):
> >
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=virt/kvm/kvm.git;a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/next
> >
> > Introduced by this commit:
> >
> > http://git.kernel.org/?p=virt/kvm/kvm.git;a=commit;h=ab9cf4996bb989983e73da894b8dd0239aa2c3c2
>
> This bit:
>
> > + if (kvm_para_has_feature(KVM_FEATURE_PV_EOI)) {
> > + struct apic **drv;
> > +
> > + for (drv = __apicdrivers; drv < __apicdrivers_end; drv++) {
> > + /* Should happen once for each apic */
> > + WARN_ON((*drv)->eoi_write == kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write);
> > + (*drv)->eoi_write = kvm_guest_apic_eoi_write;
> > + }
> > + }
> > +
>
> is rather disgusting I have to say.
>
> WTH is the KVM code meddling with core x86 apic driver data
> structures directly? At minimum factor this out and create a
> proper apic.c function which is EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL() exported or
> so...
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ingo

OK, so apic_set_eoi_write()?

--
MST