[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45F8A7ED.7090009@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 18:57:01 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
CC: lkml - Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...source.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] x86 boot, pda and gdt cleanups
Rusty Russell wrote:
> Hmm, this invalidated my assumption that write_gdt_entry is always a
> write to this cpu's active gdt. Better fix is not to call it twice
> anyway...
>
No, I don't think that's true. I implemented the write_*_entry
functions with the assumption they could be called either on setup or on
an in-use entry. I think its good policy to use it all the time anyway,
since the pv_ops backend might want to fiddle with the values on the way
through.
I tried to avoid calling init_gdt twice, but it seemed cleaner to just
let it happen.
> Getting rid of the call in smp_prepare_boot_cpu currently works, but
> it's fragile: __get_cpu_var(x) && per_cpu(x, smp_processor_id()) will
> differ, and changes made to __get_cpu_var(x) will vanish...
>
Yes. I think its definitely a good idea to call init_gdt asap after
doing the percpu setup.
> Fortunately, UP doesn't have to call init_gdt at all, so I think it's
> better to place it in smp_prepare_boot_cpu only and then clean up the UP
> code. I'll try now...
>
It doesn't? The per-cpu gdt is the same as the boot gdt?
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists