WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] APIC MSRs query

To: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] APIC MSRs query
From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2011 14:43:53 +0100
Cc: xen devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Tue, 17 May 2011 06:44:53 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4DD27760.9020706@xxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <4DD27760.9020706@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 17.05.11 at 15:25, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I am currently cleaning up the APIC code for the sake of 
> shutdown/reboot/crashdump and have a query about the (modified for 
> brevity) snippet of code:
> 
> uint64_t msr_content;
> rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_APICBASE, msr_content);
> msr_content |= MSR_IA32_APICBASE_ENABLE | MSR_IA32_APICBASE_EXTD;
> msr_content = (uint32_t)msr_content;
> wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_APICBASE, msr_content);
> 
> which is added into apic.c in changeset b622e411eef8, and has propagated 
> elsewhere in the codebase during subsequent cleanups etc.
> 
> The MP spec and x2apic spec states that bits [35:12] of 
> MSR_IA32_APICBASE is the base APIC MMIO address.  Is there reason why 
> the code (almost always) clears the top 4 bits, or is it just an 
> overlooked mistake?

I think this is a benign mistake. Benign because I don't think there is
a meaningful (to Xen at least) number of systems that would not
have their LAPIC at the default address (which fits in 32 bits).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>