At 12:29 +0000 on 21 Dec (1324470582), Wei, Gang 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)
It was removed because I was seeing the opposite problem -- if there was
a delay, the AP did not come up. Unfortunately I don;'t have sucah a
machine available any more, so I can't check whether this breaks boot
there.
Is this something that can be fixed in tboot? If not, than this patch
is OK, provided it gets a code comment explaining _why_ tboot needs the
delay.
Cheers,
Tim.
> 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; xen-de...@lists.xensource.com
> > Cc: tboot-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; 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" <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
