lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 01/13] [VOYAGER] x86: add {safe,hard}_smp_processor_id to smp_ops
James Bottomley wrote:
> Not having apics, Voyager can't use the default apic implementation of
> these, it has to read from a special port in the VIC to get the
> processor ID, so abstract these functions in smp_ops to allow voyager
> to live simultaneously with the apic code.
>

These aren't performance-sensitive at all, are they? smp_ops is not
subject to patching/inlining optimisations happen to more hotpath pvops.

Is safe_smp_processor_id needed at all? It's only got two callers, and
x86-64 just implements it as smp_processor_id().

> diff --git a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> index 035582a..0dfb8c0 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/xen/smp.c
> @@ -450,6 +450,11 @@ static irqreturn_t xen_call_function_single_interrupt(int irq, void *dev_id)
> return IRQ_HANDLED;
> }
>
> +static int xen_hard_smp_processor_id(void)
> +{
> + return read_apic_id();
> +}
> +
> static const struct smp_ops xen_smp_ops __initdata = {
> .smp_prepare_boot_cpu = xen_smp_prepare_boot_cpu,
> .smp_prepare_cpus = xen_smp_prepare_cpus,
> @@ -465,6 +470,8 @@ static const struct smp_ops xen_smp_ops __initdata = {
>
> .send_call_func_ipi = xen_smp_send_call_function_ipi,
> .send_call_func_single_ipi = xen_smp_send_call_function_single_ipi,
> + .hard_smp_processor_id = xen_hard_smp_processor_id,
> + .safe_smp_processor_id = apic_safe_smp_processor_id,
>

Hm, there's no meaningful apic-based implementation for these under
Xen. DomU has no access to apics, and Dom0's vcpus don't have any fixed
relationship to physical cpu apics. They should both just return
smp_processor_id(), I guess.

J


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-08 18:17    [W:0.141 / U:0.328 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site