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] [PATCH] x86: change IO-APIC ack method default forsingle

To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: change IO-APIC ack method default forsingle IO-APIC systems
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:32:35 +0000
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivery-date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:32:35 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4977447E.76E4.0078.0@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>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: Acl75d12qIeJdB5YtkSF2+YoUj04nA==
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: change IO-APIC ack method default forsingle IO-APIC systems
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.15.0.081119
On 21/01/2009 14:51, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> I don't specifically recall that this issue required two IO-APICs. In fact I
>> think it did not. It was actually something to do with the chipset trying to
>> distinguish between an OS using 'legacy' routing versus 'mp-bios' routing,
>> via a rather distasteful IO-APIC hack. Unfortunately the hack was not that
>> uncommon and I don't think those chipsets had more than one IO-APIC.
> 
> I'm rather certain that it did involve multiple IO-APICs. What the chipsets
> were trying to cover was the ACPI vs. no-ACPI case, since secondary IO-APICs
> generally can be (or should I say are being/have been at that time on
> "certain"
> OSes) discovered only with ACPI. Hence when an IRQ normally going to a
> secondary IO-APIC's pin go masked in that IO-APIC, a replacement route
> was automatically established (and not torn down when the mask bit got
> cleared again) to a pin of the primary IO-APIC.

Yes, I think actually you are correct.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.freebsd.current/67490/focus=67490

>> Overall I think ack_type new has worked quite well. I was actually about to
>> remove the old ack_type! (But now I won't ;-) I'm not inclined to take this
>> patch though.
> 
> If I had an affected system to debug the issue, I'd try to do so (though
> remembering how long it took to understand the original issue I'm hesitant
> to say so). With the above explanation I hope you may reconsider...

Well, it seems not great to avoid the new ack_type for some unknown bug. And
noone else has run with your patch and zero other issues with the new
ack_type have been reported. So this seems to be papering over a rather rare
and potentially nasty underlying issue. On the other hand, perhaps old
ack_type is preferable (faster) if we can be sure we're on a system where it
is safe. Hmmm.

 -- Keir



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