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

>>> On 17.05.11 at 15:59, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-17 at 14:43 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> >>> 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).
> 
> That "msr_content = (uint32_t)msr_content;" seems to be pretty
> deliberate, what else would it be trying to do? 
> 
> FWIW enable_x2apic in Linux seems to have a similar construct which
> throws away the top half of the MSR:

Surely the Xen code got cloned from the Linux one.

> void enable_x2apic(void)
> {
>        int msr, msr2;
> 
>        rdmsr(MSR_IA32_APICBASE, msr, msr2);
>        if (!(msr & X2APIC_ENABLE)) {
>                printk("Enabling x2apic\n");
>                wrmsr(MSR_IA32_APICBASE, msr | X2APIC_ENABLE, 0);
>        }
> }
> 
> (FWIW the original Xen code in 17545:9fd00ff95068 looked a lot like this
> too, b622e411eef8 just switched to wrmsrl and preserved the clearing
> behaviour).

This is what I assumed, and I'm sure it's just for simplicity that 0 gets
passed here. I don't think it's correct, the more that the actual base
address doesn't matter while in x2apic mode (but would matter when
switching back to legacy mode e.g. for kexec).

Jan


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

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