RE: [PATCH][2.4] generic cluster APIC support for systems with more than 8 CPUs

Pallipadi, Venkatesh (venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com)
Wed, 18 Dec 2002 17:05:01 -0800


I have started working on a similar patch for 2.5. Other thing in my todo list is to
split this patch up into chunks.

Other comments inlined below.

> From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@infradead.org]
> On Wed, Dec 18, 2002 at 02:36:20PM -0800, Pallipadi, Venkatesh wrote:
> > xAPIC support can actually be determined from the LAPIC version.
>
> Are you sure? IIRC some of the early summit boxens didn't report the
> right versions..
> does this really not break anything in the fragile summit setups?

I am not really sure about the local APIC versions in summit. What I remember seeing on
lkml was summit has older IOAPIC version. Can someone clarify this?

> Okay, this was wrong before, but any chance you could use proper
> style here (i.e. if ()
> Again.

oops.. I somehow missed these 'if' coding style stuff. changing it immediately.

> > + define_bool CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC y
> Do we really need CONFIG_X86_APIC_CLUSTER _and_ CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC?

I will also eliminate CONFIG_X86_APIC_CLUSTER and use CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC directly.

>
> - if (clustered_apic_mode == CLUSTERED_APIC_NUMAQ) {
> + if (clustered_apic_mode &&
> + (configured_platform_type ==
> CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMA) ) {
>
> Doesn;t configured_platform_type == CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMA imply
> clustered_apic_mode? and it should be at least
> CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMAQ,
> btw. Probably better something short like SUBARCH_NUMAQ..

Yes, right now CONFIGURED_PLATFORM_NUMA implies clustered_apic_mode, and one of the
checks in the above 'if' is redundant. Will do a search and replace of NUMA by NUMAQ.

Thanks,
Venkatesh
-
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/