Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh
2005-Apr-15 18:10 UTC
[Xen-devel] Clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 patch
Here is a patch for clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 support in Xen. To turn the features on add CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC and CONFIG_ES7000 defines to xen/include/asm-x86/config.h Signed off by Aravindh Puthiyaparambil <aravindh.puthiyaparambil@unisys.com> _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Natasha, Are the generic apic bits of this already handled by your patch? Have you a 2nd version of it ready? Thanks, Ian> -----Original Message----- > From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com] On Behalf Of > Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh > Sent: 15 April 2005 19:11 > To: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > Subject: [Xen-devel] Clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 patch > > Here is a patch for clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 support > in Xen. To turn the features on add CONFIG_X86_CLUSTERED_APIC > and CONFIG_ES7000 defines to xen/include/asm-x86/config.h > > Signed off by Aravindh Puthiyaparambil > <aravindh.puthiyaparambil@unisys.com> >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Natasha Jarymowycz
2005-Apr-15 19:55 UTC
Re: [Xen-devel] Clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 patch
Ian, I sent a second patch to the list last wednesday night/thursday morning April 6. I can resend if you need me to. Some of this work conflicts with my patch (but not a significant amount). These patches are based on linux 2.4. Unfortunately, the code organization changed drastically for linux 2.6 and it will be a bit of work to get the Xen code up to date. However, I do believe that modeling Xen after 2.6 will give a much cleaner implentation -- the code for the various machines which use clustered apics can go into separate files instead of having so many ifdef''s in the files. I would like to propose updating all the Xen apic code. I think the first step is just to model new code, such as the ES7000 support code, after 2.6 as far as code organization goes. Then the extra code from 2.4 can be stripped out. I was going to send some patches to start stripping out code but wasn''t sure if the Unisys team was using it or not. Clearly they are so that will have to wait. I also wrote a set of patches for Summit clustered APIC support (which are currently untested) so I''m aware of some of the changes which need to be made to the code for re-organization. I''d like to submit some patches for that but they will conflict with these ES7000 patches. So I guess we just need to make a decision what the best way forward is/how much re-org we want to do right now. Natasha Jarymowycz On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:01:55 +0100, Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote:> Natasha, > > Are the generic apic bits of this already handled by your patch? Have > you a 2nd version of it ready? > > Thanks, > Ian_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> I sent a second patch to the list last wednesday > night/thursday morning April 6. I can resend if you need me to.Ah, got it, thanks. The patch looks good to me. I propose to apply it, but Keir should have the final say. Aravindh: make sense to you? Going with 2.6 based code seems better in the longer run. Ian> Some of this work conflicts with my patch (but not a > significant amount). These patches are based on linux 2.4. > Unfortunately, the code organization changed drastically for > linux 2.6 and it will be a bit of work to get the Xen code up > to date. However, I do believe that modeling Xen after 2.6 > will give a much cleaner implentation -- the code for the > various machines which use clustered apics can go into > separate files instead of having so many ifdef''s in the files. > > I would like to propose updating all the Xen apic code. I > think the first step is just to model new code, such as the > ES7000 support code, after 2.6 as far as code organization > goes. Then the extra code from 2.4 can be stripped out. I > was going to send some patches to start stripping out code > but wasn''t sure if the Unisys team was using it or not. > Clearly they are so that will have to wait. > I also wrote a set of patches for Summit clustered APIC > support (which are currently untested) so I''m aware of some > of the changes which need to be made to the code for > re-organization. I''d like to submit some patches for that > but they will conflict with these ES7000 patches. So I guess > we just need to make a decision what the best way forward > is/how much re-org we want to do right now. > > Natasha Jarymowycz > > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:01:55 +0100, Ian Pratt > <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > Natasha, > > > > Are the generic apic bits of this already handled by your > patch? Have > > you a 2nd version of it ready? > > > > Thanks, > > Ian > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh
2005-Apr-15 21:40 UTC
RE: [Xen-devel] Clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 patch
Ian, I agree that going with the 2.6 based code is better in the long run. So once Natasha''s patch gets included in the unstable tree, I can pick it up and apply the ES7000 patches. Does that sound like a good idea? Or should I pick up her patches before they get applied to the unstable tree and apply the ES7000 specific code to it and then submit it? Aravindh -----Original Message----- From: Ian Pratt [mailto:m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 4:09 PM To: natasha@us.ibm.com; Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh; xen-devel@lists.xensource.com Cc: ian.pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk; ian.pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 patch> I sent a second patch to the list last wednesday > night/thursday morning April 6. I can resend if you need me to.Ah, got it, thanks. The patch looks good to me. I propose to apply it, but Keir should have the final say. Aravindh: make sense to you? Going with 2.6 based code seems better in the longer run. Ian> Some of this work conflicts with my patch (but not a > significant amount). These patches are based on linux 2.4. > Unfortunately, the code organization changed drastically for > linux 2.6 and it will be a bit of work to get the Xen code up > to date. However, I do believe that modeling Xen after 2.6 > will give a much cleaner implentation -- the code for the > various machines which use clustered apics can go into > separate files instead of having so many ifdef''s in the files. > > I would like to propose updating all the Xen apic code. I > think the first step is just to model new code, such as the > ES7000 support code, after 2.6 as far as code organization > goes. Then the extra code from 2.4 can be stripped out. I > was going to send some patches to start stripping out code > but wasn''t sure if the Unisys team was using it or not. > Clearly they are so that will have to wait. > I also wrote a set of patches for Summit clustered APIC > support (which are currently untested) so I''m aware of some > of the changes which need to be made to the code for > re-organization. I''d like to submit some patches for that > but they will conflict with these ES7000 patches. So I guess > we just need to make a decision what the best way forward > is/how much re-org we want to do right now. > > Natasha Jarymowycz > > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:01:55 +0100, Ian Pratt > <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> > wrote: > > > Natasha, > > > > Are the generic apic bits of this already handled by your > patch? Have > > you a 2nd version of it ready? > > > > Thanks, > > Ian > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> I agree that going with the 2.6 based code is better in the > long run. So once Natasha''s patch gets included in the > unstable tree, I can pick it up and apply the ES7000 patches. > Does that sound like a good idea?Sounds like a good plan. Ian> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Pratt [mailto:m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk] > Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 4:09 PM > To: natasha@us.ibm.com; Puthiyaparambil, Aravindh; > xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > Cc: ian.pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk; ian.pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Clustered xAPIC and Unisys ES7000 patch > > > > I sent a second patch to the list last wednesday > > night/thursday morning April 6. I can resend if you need me to. > > Ah, got it, thanks. > > The patch looks good to me. I propose to apply it, but Keir > should have > the final say. > > Aravindh: make sense to you? Going with 2.6 based code seems better in > the longer run. > > Ian > > > Some of this work conflicts with my patch (but not a > > significant amount). These patches are based on linux 2.4. > > Unfortunately, the code organization changed drastically for > > linux 2.6 and it will be a bit of work to get the Xen code up > > to date. However, I do believe that modeling Xen after 2.6 > > will give a much cleaner implentation -- the code for the > > various machines which use clustered apics can go into > > separate files instead of having so many ifdef''s in the files. > > > > I would like to propose updating all the Xen apic code. I > > think the first step is just to model new code, such as the > > ES7000 support code, after 2.6 as far as code organization > > goes. Then the extra code from 2.4 can be stripped out. I > > was going to send some patches to start stripping out code > > but wasn''t sure if the Unisys team was using it or not. > > Clearly they are so that will have to wait. > > I also wrote a set of patches for Summit clustered APIC > > support (which are currently untested) so I''m aware of some > > of the changes which need to be made to the code for > > re-organization. I''d like to submit some patches for that > > but they will conflict with these ES7000 patches. So I guess > > we just need to make a decision what the best way forward > > is/how much re-org we want to do right now. > > > > Natasha Jarymowycz > > > > > > > > On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 20:01:55 +0100, Ian Pratt > > <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> > > wrote: > > > > > Natasha, > > > > > > Are the generic apic bits of this already handled by your > > patch? Have > > > you a 2nd version of it ready? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Ian > > > > >_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel