From: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
To: Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com,
tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, thgarnie@google.com,
keescook@chromium.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
yamada.masahiro@socionext.com, rja@hpe.com, frank.ramsay@hpe.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RESEND 1/2] x86/UV: Introduce a helper function to check UV system at earlier stage
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2017 16:08:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170914080814.GO12824@x1> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170914074901.GA5182@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
On 09/14/17 at 03:49pm, Dave Young wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv.h
> > > index b5a32231abd8..93d7ad8763ba 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv.h
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/uv/uv.h
> > > @@ -18,6 +18,11 @@ extern void uv_nmi_init(void);
> > > extern void uv_system_init(void);
> > > extern const struct cpumask *uv_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> > > const struct flush_tlb_info *info);
> > > +#include <linux/efi.h>
> > > +static inline int is_early_uv_system(void)
> > > +{
> > > + return !((efi.uv_systab == EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) || !efi.uv_systab);
> > > +}
>
Thanks for looking into this, Dave!
>
> Sorry for jumping in late, I have two questions about the patch:
>
> 1) For efi tables, the only invalid value is EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR, and
> efi struct is initialized as EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR by default so no
> need to check "|| !efi.uv_systab". Do we have any UV firmware specific
> assumption that "0" is also possible to be assigned?
Hmm, in uv_bios_init() it also checks the !efi.uv_systab case. And
EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR checking is earlier, it won't affect the result
if it's EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR. And !efi.uv_systab can make it safer
since it doesn't work either if efi.uv_systab is 0. Mainly it's not
harmful.
Mike, what's your thought? Should I only check the (efi.uv_systab ==
EFI_INVALID_TABLE_ADDR) case?
>
> 2) It seems adding this function in uv.h for separating this for uv
> system only purpose. But I feel it is better to put it in efi.h instead.
At the beginning I put it in efi.c, later Mike suggested putting it in
asm/uv/uv.h. You can also find the discussion in below link.
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9732787/
Thanks
Baoquan
>
> uv_systab is already a member of struct efi, it is in efi.h so it is
> natural to check the table exist or not. Then just include efi.h in
> kaslr.c and use the function.
>
> something like drivers/firmware/efi/esrt.c: esrt_table_exists()
>
> Anyway I have no strong opinon, it looks more natural to me though.
>
> > >
> > > #else /* X86_UV */
> > >
> > > @@ -30,6 +35,7 @@ static inline const struct cpumask *
> > > uv_flush_tlb_others(const struct cpumask *cpumask,
> > > const struct flush_tlb_info *info)
> > > { return cpumask; }
> > > +static inline int is_early_uv_system(void) { return 0; }
> > >
> > > #endif /* X86_UV */
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.5.5
> > >
>
> Thanks
> Dave
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-14 8:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-07 7:42 [PATCH v2 RESEND 0/2] x86/mm/KASLR: Do not adapt the size of the direct mapping section for SGI UV system Baoquan He
2017-09-07 7:42 ` [PATCH v2 RESEND 1/2] x86/UV: Introduce a helper function to check UV system at earlier stage Baoquan He
2017-09-14 7:29 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-14 7:49 ` Dave Young
2017-09-14 8:08 ` Baoquan He [this message]
2017-09-15 0:47 ` Dave Young
2017-09-15 0:55 ` Dave Young
2017-09-07 7:42 ` [PATCH v2 RESEND 2/2] x86/mm/KASLR: Do not adapt the size of the direct mapping section for SGI UV system Baoquan He
2017-09-28 7:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-09-28 8:31 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-28 9:01 ` Ingo Molnar
2017-09-28 14:10 ` Mike Travis
2017-09-30 11:25 ` Baoquan He
2018-05-17 3:18 ` Baoquan He
2018-05-17 15:06 ` Ramsay, Frank
2018-05-17 15:47 ` Mike Travis
[not found] ` <53301a1e-e817-912f-cf7d-0000b078c7a3@hpe.com>
[not found] ` <20180523000306.GY24627@MiWiFi-R3L-srv>
[not found] ` <7ce3cc80-3991-f914-c539-9fa38256ea4b@hpe.com>
2018-05-31 3:26 ` Baoquan He
2017-09-14 1:44 ` [PATCH v2 RESEND 0/2] " Baoquan He
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=20170914080814.GO12824@x1 \
--to=bhe@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dyoung@redhat.com \
--cc=frank.ramsay@hpe.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=rja@hpe.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thgarnie@google.com \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--cc=yamada.masahiro@socionext.com \
/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