Re: x86: Question regarding the reset value of LINT0

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 2015-04-08 18:59, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 2015-04-08 18:40, Nadav Amit wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I would appreciate if someone explains the reason for enabling LINT0 during
>>>> APIC reset. This does not correspond with Intel SDM Figure 10-8: “Local
>>>> Vector Table” that says all LVT registers are reset to 0x10000.
>>>> 
>>>> In kvm_lapic_reset, I see:
>>>> 
>>>> 	apic_set_reg(apic, APIC_LVT0,
>>>> 		SET_APIC_DELIVERY_MODE(0, APIC_MODE_EXTINT));
>>>> 
>>>> Which is actually pretty similar to QEMU’s apic_reset_common:
>>>> 
>>>>   if (bsp) {
>>>>       /*
>>>>        * LINT0 delivery mode on CPU #0 is set to ExtInt at initialization
>>>>        * time typically by BIOS, so PIC interrupt can be delivered to the
>>>>        * processor when local APIC is enabled.
>>>>        */
>>>>       s->lvt[APIC_LVT_LINT0] = 0x700;
>>>>   }
>>>> 
>>>> Yet, in both cases, I miss the point - if it is typically done by the BIOS,
>>>> why does QEMU or KVM enable it?
>>>> 
>>>> BTW: KVM seems to run fine without it, and I think setting it causes me
>>>> problems in certain cases.
>>> 
>>> I suspect it has some historic BIOS backgrounds. Already tried to find
>>> more information in the git logs of both code bases? Or something that
>>> indicates of SeaBIOS or BochsBIOS once didn't do this initialization?
>> Thanks. I found no indication of such thing.
>> 
>> QEMU’s commit message (0e21e12bb311c4c1095d0269dc2ef81196ccb60a) says:
>> 
>>    Don't route PIC interrupts through the local APIC if the local APIC
>>    config says so. By Ari Kivity.
>> 
>> Maybe Avi Kivity knows this guy.
> 
> ths? That should have been Thiemo Seufer (IIRC), but he just committed
> the code back then (and is no longer with us, sadly).
Oh… I am sorry - I didn’t know about that.. (I tried to make an unfunny joke
about Avi knowing “Ari”).

> But if that commit went in without any BIOS changes around it, QEMU
> simply had to do the job of the latter to keep things working.
So should I leave it as is? Can I at least disable in KVM during INIT (and
leave it as is for RESET)?

Thanks,
Nadav

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux