From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dimitri Sivanich <sivanich@sgi.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Don't ack_APIC_irq() if lapic is disabled in GENERIC_INTERRUPT_VECTOR handler
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:49:06 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090920184906.GE32176@lenovo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090920184203.GD32176@lenovo>
[Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:42:03PM +0400]
| [Cyrill Gorcunov - Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:30:11PM +0400]
| ...
| | | >
| | | > iirc it was Xen related patch. So it's not that simple.
| | | >
| | | > I've pointed out Sheng about disable_apic. I'm not Xen
| | | > specialist but Xen team seem to use specific apic setup
| | | > so our "dummy" operations are not involved (case they
| | | > set disable_apic=1 without "turn off" apic ops in real).
| | | > Something like that.
| | |
| | | They should then set a NOP function in that case. We really dont want to
| | | slow down hotpath functions like smp_generic_interrupt() with flaggery.
| | |
| | | Ingo
| | |
| |
| | Well, I suppose we should wait for Sheng's comments.
| | I wish I would answer you but I simply don't know Xen
| | code :)
| |
| | -- Cyrill
|
| Wait a bit Ingo, please. It seems I'm having different
| patch series in mind. Need to restore mail thread.
| Will back soon :)
|
| -- Cyrill
yeah, it comes from Xen RFC series. Here is a quote from
conversation.
> Sheng Yan
>
> | | is there was some problem with it? I'm asking you
> | | because if disable_apic=1 then any apic write/read
> | | operations become NOPs. So I don't see how it may
> | | hurt. But I could be missing something.
> | |
> | | -- Cyrill
> |
> | Ah, I see -- it's due to your other patch...
> | Hmm this makes all "disable apic" idea less
> | general. And safety of ack_APIC_irq is now
> | under suspicious.
>
> Um, probably. I've seen a ack_APIC_irq() in do_IRQ when handle_irq() fail.
> Seems the assumption that ack_APIC_irq() always safe is there. I will check if
> I can make it more elegant - maybe disable the warning in the Xen code...
>
Personally, I think "out-of-xen-thread" this patch is not needed.
And if this apic-ack operation causes any kind of problems --
this problem should be fixed without disable_apic involved.
-- Cyrill
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-20 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-08 9:52 [PATCH] x86: Don't ack_APIC_irq() if lapic is disabled in GENERIC_INTERRUPT_VECTOR handler Sheng Yang
2009-09-20 18:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-09-20 18:13 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-09-20 18:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-09-20 18:30 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-09-20 18:42 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-09-20 18:49 ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]
2009-09-20 19:07 ` Sheng Yang
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=20090920184906.GE32176@lenovo \
--to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=sheng@linux.intel.com \
--cc=sivanich@sgi.com \
--cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox