Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 3/6] xen/arm: gic: Use the correct CPU ID

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2013-09-25 at 16:42 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> On 09/25/2013 04:35 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Fri, 2013-09-20 at 16:03 +0100, Julien Grall wrote:
> >> +static unsigned int gic_cpu_mask(const cpumask_t *cpumask)
> >> +{
> >> +    unsigned int cpu;
> >> +    unsigned int mask = 0;
> >> +    cpumask_t possible_mask;
> >> +
> >> +    cpumask_and(&possible_mask, cpumask, &cpu_possible_map);
> >> +    for_each_cpu(cpu, &possible_mask)
> >> +    {
> >> +        ASSERT(cpu < NR_GIC_CPU_IF);
> >> +        ASSERT(__per_cpu_offset[cpu] != -(long)__per_cpu_start);
> > 
> > This should be INVALID_PERCPU_AREA, but that is private to percpu.c. I
> > think we can live without this check. After all the CPU is in possible
> > map.
> 
> Being in cpu possible map doesn't mean that the per cpu region is
> initialized for the given cpu.

So you expect this ASSERT to trigger in practice? That's not good...

> I have noticed the INVALID_PERCPU_AREA is the same both Intel and ARM
> platform. Can we move this define in percpu.h?

I'm wondering if it should be the same, I think it was chosen on x86 to
result in a non-canonical address (i.e. a guaranteed fault) and ARM
copied it.

__per_cpu_start on ARM is in the first 2MB so -__per_cpu_start is 2MB
from the top of the 64 bit address space, which is also invalid. I
think, Tim, did you consider this or just copy the x86 value?

Anyway, my point is that they are the same only through coincidence ;-)

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel