From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de,
mingo@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, bp@alien8.de,
indou.takao@jp.fujitsu.com, izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/13] x86/apic: Construct a selector for the interrupt delivery mode
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:22:59 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170907052259.GP30906@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9f9f7477-01e9-cd16-47a2-e7ce13789e50@cn.fujitsu.com>
On 09/07/17 at 12:19pm, Dou Liyang wrote:
> Hi Baoquan
>
> I am wordy one ah:
> our target is checking if BIOS supports APIC, no matter what
> type(separated/integrated) it is. if not, go to PIC mode.
>
> Let‘s discuss the original logic and the smp_found_config,
> then take about your code.
>
> The existing logic is:
>
> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) && !smp_found_config) ...(1)
> return -1;
>
> if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) &&
> APIC_INTEGRATED(boot_cpu_apic_version)) { ...(2)
> pr_err(....);
>
> why smp_found_config has to be checked in (1)?
>
> Because, In case of discrete (pretty old) apics we may not set
> X86_FEATURE_APIC bit in cpuid, with 82489DX we can't rely on apic
> feature bit retrieved via cpuid(boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)).[1]
> So we assume that if SMP configuration is found from MP table
> (smp_found_config = 1) in above case, there maybe a separated
> chip in our pc.
>
> After passing the check of (1), we in (2), check whether local APIC
> is detected or not, If we have a BIOS bug.
>
> [1] Commit 8312136fa8b0("x86, apic: Fix missed handling of discrete apics")
Hmm, sounds reasonable. Just a sentence to describe it could be better.
>
> At 09/06/2017 06:17 PM, Baoquan He wrote:
> > Hi Dou,
> >
> > On 08/28/17 at 11:20am, Dou Liyang wrote:
> > > +static int __init apic_intr_mode_select(void)
> > > +{
> > > + /* Check kernel option */
> > > + if (disable_apic) {
> > > + pr_info("APIC disabled via kernel command line\n");
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +
> >
> > I am not very familiar with cpu registers, not sure if we can adjust
> > below code flow as:
> >
> > /* If APIC is integrated, check local APIC only */
> > if (lapic_is_integrated() && !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)) {
> > disable_apic = 1;
> > pr_info("APIC disabled by BIOS\n");
> > return APIC_PIC;
> > }
> >
> > /* If APIC is on a separate chip, check if smp_found_config is found*/
> > if (!lapic_is_integrated() && !smp_found_config) {
> > disable_apic = 1;
> > return APIC_PIC;
> > }
>
> Yes, Awesome, we first consider it from APIC register space, then
> the BOIS and software configration. let me do more investigation.
>
> I rewrite it based on you, any comments will welcome.
>
> /* If APIC is not integrated, check if SMP configuration is
> * found from MP table. If not too, no 82489DX. switch to
> * PIC mode
> *
> * Else APIC is integrated, check if the BIOS allows local APIC
> *
> */
> if (!lapic_is_integrated()) {
> if (!smp_found_config) {
> disable_apic = 1;
> return APIC_PIC;
> }
> } else if(!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)) {
> disable_apic = 1;
> pr_info("APIC disabled by BIOS\n");
> return APIC_PIC;
> }
> }
Yeah, it's fine to me. At least the logic looks more understandable.
>
> BTW, As the macro APIC_INTEGRATED(x) has already wrapped by
> CONFIG_X86_32, I will cleanup the lapic_is_integrated() for readablity
> like that:
Yes, looks good. There's duplicate judgement of X86_64 in
lapic_is_integrated.
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> index 7834f73..63b3ae9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> @@ -211,11 +211,7 @@ static inline int lapic_get_version(void)
> */
> static inline int lapic_is_integrated(void)
> {
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> - return 1;
> -#else
> return APIC_INTEGRATED(lapic_get_version());
> -#endif
> }
>
>
> Do you think so. ;-)
>
>
> Thanks,
> dou.
>
>
> > ~~~~ Now, I haven't think of why smp_found_config has to be
> > checked here.
> >
> > In this way, we don't need the CONFIG_X86_64 checking since it's
> > contained in lapic_is_integrated() already. And the checking is obvious
> > for understanding. Just not very sure if the checking is adequate.
> >
> > Just my personal opinion.
> >
> > > + /* Check BIOS */
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> > > + /* On 64-bit, the APIC must be integrated, Check local APIC only */
> > > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC)) {
> > > + disable_apic = 1;
> > > + pr_info("APIC disabled by BIOS\n");
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +#else
> > > + /*
> > > + * On 32-bit, check whether there is a separate chip or integrated
> > > + * APIC
> > > + */
> > > +
> > > + /* Has a separate chip ? */
> > > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) && !smp_found_config) {
> > > + disable_apic = 1;
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + /* Has a local APIC ? */
> > > + if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_APIC) &&
> > > + APIC_INTEGRATED(boot_cpu_apic_version)) {
> > > + disable_apic = 1;
> > > + pr_err(FW_BUG "Local APIC %d not detected, force emulation\n",
> > > + boot_cpu_physical_apicid);
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_PIC;
> > > + }
> > > +#endif
> > > +
> > > + /* Check MP table or ACPI MADT configuration */
> > > + if (!smp_found_config) {
> > > + disable_ioapic_support();
> > > +
> > > + if (!acpi_lapic)
> > > + pr_info("APIC: ACPI MADT or MP tables are not detected\n");
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_VIRTUAL_WIRE;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + return APIC_SYMMETRIC_IO;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * An initial setup of the virtual wire mode.
> > > */
> > > --
> > > 2.5.5
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-07 5:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-28 3:20 [PATCH v8 00/13] Unify the interrupt delivery mode and do its setup in advance Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 01/13] x86/apic: Construct a selector for the interrupt delivery mode Dou Liyang
2017-09-06 0:55 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-06 4:18 ` Dou Liyang
2017-09-06 9:02 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-06 10:17 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-07 4:19 ` Dou Liyang
2017-09-07 5:22 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2017-09-12 1:20 ` Dou Liyang
2017-09-12 8:04 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-13 2:30 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-13 3:48 ` Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 02/13] x86/apic: Prepare for unifying the interrupt delivery modes setup Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 03/13] x86/apic: Split local APIC timer setup from the APIC setup Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 04/13] x86/apic: Move logical APIC ID away from apic_bsp_setup() Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 05/13] x86/apic: Unify interrupt mode setup for SMP-capable system Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 06/13] x86/apic: Mark the apic_intr_mode extern for sanity check cleanup Dou Liyang
2017-09-06 4:25 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-06 5:26 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-06 5:41 ` Dou Liyang
2017-09-06 8:03 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-07 2:27 ` Dou Liyang
2017-09-07 2:34 ` Baoquan He
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 07/13] x86/apic: Unify interrupt mode setup for UP system Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 08/13] x86/ioapic: Refactor the delay logic in timer_irq_works() Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 09/13] x86/init: add intr_mode_init to x86_init_ops Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 10/13] x86/xen: Bypass intr mode setup in enlighten_pv system Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 4:25 ` [Xen-devel] " Juergen Gross
2017-08-28 4:32 ` Juergen Gross
2017-08-28 5:15 ` Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 11/13] ACPI / init: Invoke early ACPI initialization earlier Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 12/13] x86/time: Initialize interrupt mode behind timer init Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 3:20 ` [PATCH v8 13/13] x86/apic: Remove the init_bsp_APIC() Dou Liyang
2017-08-28 5:38 ` [PATCH v8 00/13] Unify the interrupt delivery mode and do its setup in advance Dou Liyang
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=20170907052259.GP30906@x1 \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=indou.takao@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=izumi.taku@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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