Re: [PATCH] Use x2apic_supported() in the default_apic_id_valid()function.

[Steffen Persvold]

On 3/16/2012 05:19, Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 7:08 PM, Yinghai Lu<yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > > So this change breaks the commit
> > > c284b42abadbb22083bfde24d308899c08d44ffa.
> > >
> > > I think the right thing is to have two different apid_id_valid checks
> > > one for xapic driver (apic_flat_64.c) and another for x2apic driver
> > > (x2apic_phys/cluster.c) and that way, x2apic MADT entries will be parsed
> > > only if bios has handed over the OS in x2apic mode or if we have
> > > selected the numachip model.
> >
> > that looks like more clear.
>
> after more thinking, I think We should still use cpu_has_x2apic checking.
>
> one maybe invalid case:
>
> System have some cpus apic id<  255, and some cpu apic id>  255.
> BSP apic id<  255.
> those cpus apic id<  255 will be put into xapic mode, cpus>  255 will
> be put into x2apic mode.
> and DMAR table intr-remapping will be working.

Hmm, I didn't know you could have two apic drivers (e.g. apic_flat_64 
and x2apic_*) available at the same time ? Or did I read the above wrong ?

> So if we check x2apic_mode early, will skip cpu with apic id>  255,
> even switch to x2apic later.

Which one of the two patches I sent, do you (Suresh/Yinghai/others) 
believe is the best/cleanest and works in all cases. I, unfortunately, 
can't test the Intel case as I don't have any available to test on :/

Either patch works fine for NumaChip enabled systems.

If desired I will re-post the patch with the approach you find best, but 
add the apic->apic_id_valid() check in the SRAT code aswell.

Cheers,
--
Steffen Persvold, Chief Architect NumaChip
Numascale AS - www.numascale.com
Tel: +47 92 49 25 54 Skype: spersvold
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/