public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@novell.com>
To: "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: <tglx@linutronix.de>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: x86: meaning of nolapic command line option
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 08:19:55 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <496C5CBB.76E4.0078.0@novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090111024642.GA7077@elte.hu>

>>> Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu> 11.01.09 03:46 >>>
>
>* Jan Beulich <jbeulich@novell.com> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't that option imply that all APIC related activity, including 
>> that relating to IO-APICs or PCI MSI, should be circumvented? I'm 
>> finding that MSI must be disabled separately, and while most of the 
>> IO-APIC stuff is indeed not happening, acpi_get_override_irq() only 
>> checks skip_ioapic_setup, but that doesn't normally set without the 
>> noapic command line option.
>> 
>> Is there any reason pci_no_msi() and disable_ioapic_setup() shouldn't be 
>> called when !cpu_has_apic at the end of identify_cpu()?
>
>Yes, both depend on a lapic and they might limp on with whatever the BIOS 
>gave us, you are right that it should be disabled explicitly. Mind sending 
>a patch?

I will - just wanted to see whether there's some hidden reason behind the
current way this is coded. Actually, I meanwhile realized that doing this
somply based on !cpu_has_apic wouldn't be right, it should (at least for
32-bits) also depend on APIC_INTEGRATED() - just like e.g. done in
APIC_init_uniprocessor().

Jan


      reply	other threads:[~2009-01-13  8:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-01-09 17:00 x86: meaning of nolapic command line option Jan Beulich
2009-01-11  2:46 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-01-13  8:19   ` Jan Beulich [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=496C5CBB.76E4.0078.0@novell.com \
    --to=jbeulich@novell.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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