[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180622151446.lqqmk6nkzzkb6lew@black.fi.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 18:14:46 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH REBASED RESEND] x86/cpu: Move early cpu initialization
into a separate translation unit
On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:05:47PM +0000, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2018, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
>
> > __pgtable_l5_enabled shouldn't be needed after system has booted, we can
> > mark it as __initdata, but it requires preparation.
> >
> > This patch moves early cpu initialization into a separate translation
> > unit. This limits effect of USE_EARLY_PGTABLE_L5 to less code.
> >
> > Without the change cpu_init() uses __pgtable_l5_enabled. cpu_init() is
> > not __init function and it leads to section mismatch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> > Reviewed-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>
> Second thoughts.
>
> The only place where __pgtable_l5_enabled() is used in common.c is in
> early_identify_cpu() which is marked __init. So how is that section
> mismatch triggered?
Yeah, it's not obvious:
cpu_init()
load_mm_ldt()
ldt_slot_va()
LDT_BASE_ADDR
LDT_PGD_ENTRY
pgtable_l5_enabled()
--
Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists