[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080321091542.GE20420@elte.hu>
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:15:42 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yhlu.kernel@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>, shai@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [patch 4/4] x86: apic_is_clustered_box to indicate unsynched
TSC's on multiboard vSMP systems
* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.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
--
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