From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC -tip] x86: do_IRQ - send APIC EOI for x86-32 on irq without handler v3
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:27:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090410122750.GR21506@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090409181802.GC7558@lenovo>
* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@openvz.org> wrote:
> Ingo, I've checked the sources and as far as I see
> we could NOP'ify apic->write indeed but I have
> an internal feeling that this will bring us more problem
> in future (for example it could be the following scenario:
> some screwed APIC would require cleaning of LVT's or
> IRR after resume regardless if it was initialized
> or not at all). Mostly I mean that the idea of making
> apic->write NOP'ified is quite elegant indeed but
> cut off the subset of apic operations (we need
> apic->read anyway) somehow bothering me from inside :)
it's as if assigned a special type of 'dummy apic' struct apic. It
wont cause problems down the line: we use the new APIC driver
infrastructure to abstract out quirks.
one small detail:
> +/* Ack APIC irq if it's enabled only */
> +static inline void ack_APIC_irq_safe(void)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_LOCAL_APIC
> + if (cpu_has_apic)
> + ack_APIC_irq();
> +#endif
we dont need the cpu_has_apic check there, do we? In the
!cpu_has_apic the ->write method should be a dummy.
> -#ifdef CONFIG_X86_64
> - if (!disable_apic)
> - ack_APIC_irq();
> -#endif
> -
> + ack_APIC_irq_safe();
Please keep the ack_APIC_irq() name - it is inherently safe to call
it if we always give it a meaningful ->write method.
Ingo
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-10 12:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-09 18:18 Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-04-10 12:27 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2009-04-10 13:56 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-04-10 14:00 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-10 20:29 ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2009-04-12 14:06 ` 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=20090410122750.GR21506@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=gorcunov@openvz.org \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--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®