Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762497Ab0HGCtP (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2010 22:49:15 -0400 Received: from out02.mta.xmission.com ([166.70.13.232]:41921 "EHLO out02.mta.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1762474Ab0HGCtN (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Aug 2010 22:49:13 -0400 To: Yinghai Lu Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" , mingo@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tvrtko.ursulin@sophos.com, hilld@binarystorm.net, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@linux.intel.com, linux-tip-commits@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86, apic: Map the local apic when parsing the MP table. References: <4C5CA3E4.1080908@kernel.org> <4C5CA5AC.3060608@zytor.com> <4C5CB52A.9080102@zytor.com> <4C5CB71D.1040509@kernel.org> From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Date: Fri, 06 Aug 2010 19:49:04 -0700 In-Reply-To: <4C5CB71D.1040509@kernel.org> (Yinghai Lu's message of "Fri\, 06 Aug 2010 18\:30\:05 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-XM-SPF: eid=;;;mid=;;;hst=in01.mta.xmission.com;;;ip=67.188.4.80;;;frm=ebiederm@xmission.com;;;spf=neutral X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.188.4.80 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: ebiederm@xmission.com X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on in01.mta.xmission.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1468 Lines: 42 Yinghai Lu writes: > On 08/06/2010 06:21 PM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 08/06/2010 06:08 PM, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not sure the above is decipherable. Please provide an incremental >>>> patch with a more detailed description. >>> >>> YH was saying I overoptimized, and it looks like he is right, >>> although there are only one or two machines in existence that >>> are likely to be affected. >>> >>> Untested patch to remove the cleverness below. It it boots all >>> is well. >>> >> >> This makes sense to me. Yinghai, do you have a system that is actually >> affected, and if so, could you test this patch? > > no, i don't have those kind of system. I don't know if anyone does. It looks like sfi aka moorestown and visws are what are affected. That is why I made a patch that any boot where we exercise a local apic will exercise. Arguably if it is best to just remove that hunk from my patch, so we have something that is safe to backport to 2.6.35.1. > found it when i was preparing more smp_register_lapic_address patcheset. > > I suggest we still keep !acpi_lapic checking, that should always right. Ultimately we want to remove the code duplication entirely. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/