public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@elte.hu, macro@linux-mips.org,
	yinghai@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 2/2] x86,apic: Use logical OR in noop-write operation
Date: Tue, 08 Dec 2009 12:10:24 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B1EB2B0.4000204@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091208155557.326359748@openvz.org>

On 12/08/2009 07:53 AM, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
> For apic noop'ified we have to use logical OR statement,
> otherwise any write on systems shipped with 82489DX
> (where apic presence bit can't be retrieved via cpuid)
> will not trigger the warning which is not desired.
> 
> In turn noop'ified read operation remains using logical
> AND statement. This will catch _only_ future code bugs
> since:
> 
> 1) The old 32bit systems without apic presence bit use
>    disable_apic only as a flag that chip was turned off
>    via boot option but not due to MP-table (BIOS) bug where
>    we may try to re-enable apic via MSR registers. The further
>    SMP setup code already prepared for a such situation
>    (ie it disables SMP support) and do not issue write
>    operations but still needs to issue apic_read. So instead
>    of deforming code with "if" we just allow reads until
>    SMP support gets disabled. But even then we still need
>    apic_read issued on a such machine at shutdown procedure.
> 
> 2) x86-64 at moment properly uses cpu_has_apic and turn
>    this feature off as only chip is disabled together
>    with disable_apic flag.
> 

Could you clarify the question I asked yesterday: how is the "or"
different from just warning unconditionally (which would at least be a
lot more clear)?  Can the situation that !cpu_has_apic && disable_apic
actually happen and we *still* end up in apic_write?

	-hpa

  reply	other threads:[~2009-12-08 20:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-12-08 15:53 [patch 0/2] apic snipptes on latest -tip/master Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 15:53 ` [patch 1/2] x86,mcheck: Thermal monitoring depends on APIC being enabled Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-09 14:56   ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 15:53 ` [patch 2/2] x86,apic: Use logical OR in noop-write operation Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 20:10   ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2009-12-08 20:26     ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-08 20:48   ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-12-09 15:50     ` Cyrill Gorcunov

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=4B1EB2B0.4000204@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --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