[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f71275dc809cfb32df513023786c3faa@natalenko.name>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2023 12:46:04 +0100
From: Oleksandr Natalenko <oleksandr@...alenko.name>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
Cc: Kim Phillips <kim.phillips@....com>, tglx@...utronix.de,
Usama Arif <usama.arif@...edance.com>, arjan@...ux.intel.com,
mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
hpa@...or.com, x86@...nel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org, mimoja@...oja.de,
hewenliang4@...wei.com, thomas.lendacky@....com, seanjc@...gle.com,
pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de, fam.zheng@...edance.com,
punit.agrawal@...edance.com, simon.evans@...edance.com,
liangma@...ngbit.com,
"Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@....com>,
Piotr Gorski <piotrgorski@...hyos.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 0/8] Parallel CPU bringup for x86_64
On 21.02.2023 11:27, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On 21 February 2023 09:49:51 GMT, Oleksandr Natalenko
> <oleksandr@...alenko.name> wrote:
>> On 21.02.2023 10:06, David Woodhouse wrote:
>>> Why does arch/x86/kernel/acpi/sleep.c::x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel()
>>> set
>>>
>>> initial_gs = per_cpu_offset(smp_processor_id()) ?
>>>
>>> Would it not be CPU#0 that comes back up, and should it not get
>>> per_cpu_offset(0) ?
>>
>> Wanna me try `initial_gs = per_cpu_offset(0);` too?
>
> Hm, yes please. There's another one to make zero on the next line up, I
> think?
So,
```
early_gdt_descr.address = (unsigned long)get_cpu_gdt_rw(0);
initial_gs = per_cpu_offset(0);
```
?
Should I leave `smpboot_control = 0;` commented out, or I should
uncomment it back?
--
Oleksandr Natalenko (post-factum)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists