[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090705194608.GL4791@lenovo>
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 23:46:08 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC -tip] x86,apic -- reduce disable_apic usage
[H. Peter Anvin - Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 12:18:00PM -0700]
| Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
| >
| > Peter, Maciej but how kernel behaved on older cpu long time ago?
| >
| > I mean -- should user pass "lapic" cmdline option too be
| > able to use apic functionality? (i'm asking since I just
| > don't know how it had been working before). Current
| > code (if only I'm not _missing_ something) relies on cpu_has_apic
| > bit. And even if MP table has been parsed and APIC base found,
| > cpu_has_apic could be not set so detect_init_APIC will fail
| > if no "lapic" option passed (in case of old cpu without this cpuid
| > bit produced) as we eventually stay with pic mode.
| >
|
| Well, systems with discrete APICs were few and far between. I'm not
| sure if there are any such systems still in meaningful existence (kind
| of like Voyager.) That makes it a bit hard to test things, and
| certainly means we shouldn't bend over backwards in doing *anything*
| that could possibly break other machines.
|
| -hpa
|
Then this patch (eventually) should be dropped. I need to re-check
all this.
-- Cyrill
--
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