[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100720201740.GE6227@lenovo>
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 00:17:40 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Robert Richter <robert.richter@....com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] x86, xsave: some code cleanups and reworks
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 12:07:29AM +0400, Cyrill Gorcunov wrote:
...
> >
> > But first question is, is it always !smp_processor_id()? At least
> > current implementation indicates this:
> >
>
> I guess so, since it's assigned from boot_cpu_id iirc
>
well, not true, this id is being set in setup_per_cpu_areas()
note the snippet
if (cpu == boot_cpu_id)
switch_to_new_gdt(cpu);
but cycle of assignment is done over all possible cpus so
smp_processor_id will be = 0 for BP but definitely it's
confusing and better to check for BP via explicit cpu == boot_cpu_id
I think. Though I might be missing something.
> > void __cpuinit identify_secondary_cpu(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> > {
> > BUG_ON(c == &boot_cpu_data);
> > ...
> >
> > with:
> >
> > #define boot_cpu_data cpu_data[0]
> >
> > ... which is valid for 32 and 64 bit.
> >
-- 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