Resent:
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)
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 20:26:39 2011 +0800
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@
#include <asm/msr.h>
#include <asm/mtrr.h>
#include <asm/time.h>
+#include <asm/tboot.h>
#include <mach_apic.h>
#include <mach_wakecpu.h>
#include <smpboot_hooks.h>
@@ -463,6 +464,10 @@ 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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wei, Gang
> Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 8:18 PM
> To: Keir Fraser; [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]; Jan Beulich; Tim Deegan; Cihula,
> Joseph; Wei, Gang
> Subject: RE: [patch] x86: Add a delay between INIT & SIPIs for AP bring-up in
> X2APIC case
>
> Keir Fraser wrote on 2011-12-21:
> > On 21/12/2011 11:22, "Wei, Gang" <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tboot-devel
