Keir Fraser wrote on 2011-12-21:
> On 21/12/2011 11:22, "Wei, Gang" <gang....@intel.com> wrote:
>
>> Without this delay, Xen could not bring APs up while working with
>> TXT/tboot, because tboot need some time in APs to handle INIT before
>> becoming ready for receiving SIPIs. (this delay was removed as part
>> of c/s 23724 by Tim Deegan)
>
> Of course Tim will need to review this himself, but a mdelay() right
> here, only on the x2apic path just looks bizarre and fragile.
>
> Could we make the !x2apic_enabled conditionals that Tim added be
> !(x2apic_enabled || tboot_in_measured_env()) instead? At least that is
> somewhat self-documenting and clearly only affects tboot!
Does below patch make more sense?
diff -r d1aefee43af1 xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c
--- a/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c Wed Dec 21 18:51:31 2011 +0800
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/smpboot.c Wed Dec 21 19:08:57 2011 +0800
@@ -463,6 +463,10 @@ static int wakeup_secondary_cpu(int phys
send_status = apic_read(APIC_ICR) & APIC_ICR_BUSY;
} while ( send_status && (timeout++ < 1000) );
}
+ else if ( tboot_in_measured_env() )
+ {
+ udelay(10);
+ }
/*
* Should we send STARTUP IPIs ?
Jimmy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
_______________________________________________
tboot-devel mailing list
tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tboot-devel
