lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 2/2] x86,apic: Use logical OR in noop-write operation
On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 12:10:24PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> 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)?

Hmm, indeed it seems that unconditional WARN would be more clean
and reliable. Will recheck all apic_write calls.

> Can the situation that !cpu_has_apic && disable_apic
> actually happen and we *still* end up in apic_write?

No, this situation should not take place as far as I remember.

>
> -hpa
>
-- Cyrill


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-08 21:29    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans