From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@suse.com>
To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com>,
Juergen Gross <JGross@suse.com>,
luto@amacapital.net, thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com,
andy.shevchenko@gmail.com, bhelgaas@google.com,
rientjes@google.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de, pure.logic@nexus-software.ie,
mingo@redhat.com, bp@suse.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/2] x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_APIC
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:18:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150312151835.GL25035@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55015F690200007800068D86@suse.com>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 02:42:01AM -0600, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 12.03.15 at 00:10, <mcgrof@do-not-panic.com> wrote:
> > config X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > def_bool y
> > - depends on X86_64 || SMP || X86_32_NON_STANDARD || X86_UP_APIC || PCI_MSI
> > + depends on X86_64 || SMP || X86_32_NON_STANDARD || PCI_MSI
>
> I.e. building a 32-bit kernel with APIC support but with !SMP, !PCI_MSI,
> and !X86_32_NON_STANDARD will now be impossible.
These are the requirements for X86_UP_APIC though.
> Surely not what the patch description says.
The only removal I see here is the option to opt-in or out of
X86_UP_APIC when PCI_MSI is *not* enabled provided you meet the
requirements.
> > --- a/drivers/pci/Kconfig
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/Kconfig
> > @@ -5,6 +5,8 @@ config PCI_MSI
> > bool "Message Signaled Interrupts (MSI and MSI-X)"
> > depends on PCI
> > select GENERIC_MSI_IRQ
> > + select X86_LOCAL_APIC
> > + select X86_IO_APIC
>
> I don't see the need for the latter - MSI specifically works without
> any IO-APIC interaction.
Although it can some MSI platforms need it as Bryan originally
had expressed in his original patch [0] that Intel CE, Intel MID
and Intel Quark are all 32-bit uniprocessor systems with IO-APICs
that also use PCI-MSI, so this is not a hard requirement but rather
compromising on enabling it since the the X86_IOAPIC cost is only
~12 KiB at with no performance penalty.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/1/22/718
> And for the former you should decide
> which way you want it - PCI_MSI select X86_LOCAL_APIC
> (probably the right thing in x86, but surely wrong everwhere
> else, i.e. this at least needs a condition tagged onto it)
selects are done *iff* the dependencies are met, otherwise we can't
select it, that's all, so the *iff* is implicit.
> or
> X86_LOCAL_APIC depend on PCI_MSI; in no case should this
> be a forward _and_ reverse dependency.
There is no reverse requirement here because of the select.
The trick here is the select implies the depends the value
you are selecting has.
mcgrof@ergon ~/linux-next (git::master)$ export ARCH=alpha
mcgrof@ergon ~/linux-next (git::master)$ make allnoconfig
mcgrof@ergon ~/linux-next (git::master)$ make menuconfig
--> System setup --->
[*] Message Signaled Interrupts (MSI and MSI-X)
mcgrof@ergon ~/linux-next (git::master)$ grep -i APIC .config
mcgrof@ergon ~/linux-next (git::master)$ echo $?
1
Luis
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-12 15:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-11 23:10 [PATCH v1 0/2] x86: simplify UP APIC conditions Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-11 23:10 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_IOAPIC Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-12 1:19 ` Bryan O'Donoghue
2015-03-12 15:35 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-12 5:36 ` David Rientjes
2015-03-12 15:26 ` Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-11 23:10 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] x86: kconfig: remove X86_UP_APIC Luis R. Rodriguez
2015-03-12 8:42 ` Jan Beulich
[not found] ` <55015F690200007800068D86@suse.com>
2015-03-12 15:18 ` Luis R. Rodriguez [this message]
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=20150312151835.GL25035@wotan.suse.de \
--to=mcgrof@suse.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=JGross@suse.com \
--cc=andy.shevchenko@gmail.com \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pci@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mcgrof@do-not-panic.com \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=pure.logic@nexus-software.ie \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).