[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101201151404.GA2069@helgaas.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 08:14:04 -0700
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@...com>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>,
Chris Wright <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
Max Asbock <masbock@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
indou.takao@...fujitsu.com,
Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>, stable@...nel.org,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 2/4] x86, vtd: fix the vt-d fault handling irq
migration in the x2apic mode
On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:22:27PM -0800, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> From: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
> Subject: x86, vtd: fix the vt-d fault handling irq migration in the x2apic mode
>
> In x2apic mode, we need to set the upper address register of the fault
> handling interrupt register of the vt-d hardware. Without this
> irq migration of the vt-d fault handling interrupt is broken.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kenji Kaneshige <kaneshige.kenji@...fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@...el.com>
> Cc: stable@...nel.org [v2.6.32+]
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> Index: tip/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> ===================================================================
> --- tip.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> +++ tip/arch/x86/kernel/apic/io_apic.c
> @@ -3367,6 +3367,8 @@ dmar_msi_set_affinity(struct irq_data *d
> msg.data |= MSI_DATA_VECTOR(cfg->vector);
> msg.address_lo &= ~MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID_MASK;
> msg.address_lo |= MSI_ADDR_DEST_ID(dest);
> + if (x2apic_mode)
> + msg.address_hi = MSI_ADDR_BASE_HI | MSI_ADDR_EXT_DEST_ID(dest);
Is it necessary to test x2apic_mode here? It looks like
MSI_ADDR_EXT_DEST_ID() gives you everything above the low 8
bits of the APIC ID. If those bits are always zero except in
x2apic_mode, we might not need the test.
Does the ia64 dmar_msi_set_affinity() need the same fix?
Why do we have both x2apic_enabled() and x2apic_mode? They
seem sort of redundant. (Not related to this patch, of course.)
Bjorn
--
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