From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
shai@scalex86.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] x86: apic_is_clustered_box to indicate unsynched TSC's on multiboard vSMP systems
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:15:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080321091542.GE20420@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080320190240.GB6085@localdomain>
* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> wrote:
> >> - if (!is_vsmp_box() && (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD))
> >> + if ((boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD) && !is_vsmp_box())
> >> return 0;
> Yes. The first call is to state that TSC's are synced if it is an AMD
> box and if it is _not_ a vSMPowered box (for the apic id lifting case
> on Sun boxes), the second call is for _any_ vSMPowered system with
> more than one board -- TSC's are not guaranteed to be synched in that
> case. Both these calls are needed.
i suspect there are two questions here: firstly, your change only flips
the condition around which should not have any effect _normally_. But
the thing is that is_vsmp_box() has side-effects: it reads the PCI
config space and sets a flag. It would be cleaner if there was a
separate, explicit detect_vsmp_box() call early during bootup which did
the PCI config space access, and is_vsmp_box() would only return the
current state of the vsmp flag. Then your above change would be
unnecessary.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-21 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-20 7:37 [patch 0/4] x86: vSMP updates Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-20 7:39 ` [patch 1/4] x86: vSMP: Fix is_vsmp_box() Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-20 7:44 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-03-20 18:40 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-21 9:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-21 9:17 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-03-21 17:59 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-20 7:41 ` [patch 2/4] x86: Fix build breakage when PCI is define and PARAVIRT is not Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-21 4:30 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-21 6:28 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-03-21 18:54 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-22 2:19 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
2008-03-20 7:43 ` [patch 3/4] x86: vSMP: Use pvops only if platform has the capability to support it Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-20 7:45 ` [patch 4/4] x86: apic_is_clustered_box to indicate unsynched TSC's on multiboard vSMP systems Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-20 7:53 ` Yinghai Lu
2008-03-20 19:02 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-21 9:15 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-03-21 18:52 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-21 18:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-22 18:59 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-22 20:02 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-24 21:48 ` Ravikiran G Thirumalai
2008-03-25 15:50 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-03-21 8:54 ` [patch 0/4] x86: vSMP updates Ingo Molnar
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=20080321091542.GE20420@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=gcosta@redhat.com \
--cc=kiran@scalex86.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shai@scalex86.org \
--cc=yhlu.kernel@gmail.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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®