[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4974B38F.5060503@sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 09:08:31 -0800
From: Mike Travis <travis@....com>
To: Jack Steiner <steiner@....com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: put trigger in to detect mismatched apic versions.
Jack Steiner wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 08:08:49PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Jack Steiner <steiner@....com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Btw, I checked with our UV architect and the problem is that we need a
>>>> 16 bit apic id which is what caused the MAX_APICS to be bumped to 32k.
>>>> The lower 8 bits are the normal apic id, and the upper bit relate to
>>>> the node. This means cpu 0 on node 0 has the same apic id as cpu 0 on
>>>> node 1, etc. I also asked about whether we could rely on always
>>>> having
>>> Not strictly true. The apicids in the ACPI tables are always globally
>>> unique across the entire system. Because of the size of UV systems, UV
>>> needs 16 bit apicids. This fits in the ACPI apicid id/eid fields.
Ahh, I did mean to say this applied to the lower 8 bits only.
>>>
>>> The actual processor apicid register is unfortunately only 11 bits and
>>> there are some restrictions on the actual values loaded into the apicid
>>> register.
This is for x2apics only, yes?
>>>
>>> If we can put unique ids into the apicid register, we do. If we can't,
>>> the function that reads the apicid will automatically supply the rest of
>>> the bits. Most of the kernel is unaware that the processor apicid
>>> register may have only a subset of the bits that are in the ACPI tables.
>> apicid remapping is something we need/want, so we cannot remove that
>> array. But it would be nice to offload such properties to the percpu area
>> instead - is there any reason why that is hard? The local apic is attached
>> to a CPU in any case. Is there some early init reason that complicates
>> this?
>
> I can't think of any reason why it could not be moved into
> the percpu data area. Mike???
WHich array? There are two now, the x86_cpu_to_apicid and x86_bios_cpu_apicid
that are in the percpu area? (Maybe it's time to find out why there are two. ;-)
Thanks,
Mike
--
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