Re: x86/Voyager

From: James Bottomley
Date: Sun Jan 18 2009 - 11:46:42 EST

On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 08:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Brian Gerst <brgerst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:59 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Brian Gerst wrote:
> > >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>> Hello,
> > >>>
> > >>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup_percpu.c
> > >>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup_percpu.c
> > >>>> @@ -147,6 +147,9 @@ unsigned long __per_cpu_offset[NR_CPUS] __read_mostly;
> > >>>> #endif
> > >>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__per_cpu_offset);
> > >>>>
> > >>>> +DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, cpu_number);
> > >>>> +EXPORT_PER_CPU_SYMBOL(cpu_number);
> > >>> This is inside CONFIG_HAVE_SETUP_PER_CPU_AREA. I think voyage would
> > >>> be unhappy with this change.
> > >>
> > >> Is there any specific reason Voyager doesn't use the x86
> > >> setup_per_cpu_areas() function? I don't see anything on a quick
> > >> glance that would not work. The x86 code is pretty much a superset of
> > >> the default code in init/main.c.
> > >
> > > I have no idea at all. Given that not many people can test it, I
> > > figured just leaving it alone would be the best course but if it can
> > > be merged, all the better.
> >
> > Unfortunately Voyager doesn't compile currently for unrelated reasons.
> > I'll take a look at incorporating it into these patches, but I can't
> > even do a compile test right now.

What are "unrelated reasons"?, 2.6.28 compiles and boots for me, except
some of the compile fixes (which are regressions, by the way) aren't
included in spite of being sent several times.

I've put them up here:


I haven't included the cpumask fixes (so it won't compile on 2.6.29-rc2
yet) because I'll have to try to polish them to fit in with whatever's
going on. Plus there's some type of initramfs boot failure that I need
to investigate. However, usually I wait until the x86 churn is
finished, which is a lot later into the -rc cycle than this before
fixing up all the breakage.

> Peter/James, what's the current status of x86/Voyager cleanups?

The only outstanding problem I can see in 2.6.29 is a cpumask screw up
caused by Mike Travis ... it looks easily fixable, he just forgot to
convert voyager.

I have to say that putting the SMP CPU definitions in cpu/common.c
hedged around with ifdefs for type looks really to be the wrong thing to
do. We already have compile selected files with these types, the
definition should be in there.

> A couple of months ago i made a few suggestions about how to convert
> Voyager to the cleaner x86_quirks 'quirks HAL' (from the current fragile
> and hard and expensive to maintain 'compile time HAL'), but it didnt seem
> to go anywhere. See the discussion of this timeframe:
> The VisWS subarch (which was a similarly excentric design that was only a
> PC in terms of having Intel CPUs) has been converted to CONFIG_X86_VISWS
> already, with arch/x86/kernel/visws_quirks.c holding the optional quirk
> handlers.
> The desired end result would be to have a CONFIG_X86_VOYAGER=y build mode
> that adds the quirk handlers to an otherwise generic kernel, with most of
> the quirks concentrated into a single arch/x86/kernel/voyager_quirks.c
> file - instead of having a full subarch for x86/Voyager. Both
> arch/x86/mach-voyager/ and arch/x86/include/asm/mach-voyager/ would go
> away in the end - because all functionality is merged into the generic
> code and the quirks would be in voyager_quirks.c.

You appear to have forgotten that we already had this discussion here:

But to precis, the bottom line is that I'm concerned about the damage to
mainline x86 this would cause because voyager is a vastly different
beast. We'd be doubling at least the number of function pointer
indirections, plus the current quirk stuff is inadequate: voyager needs
boot time separation to handle the unique SUS maps and other things, so
there'd be a big intrusion into the boot system as well.

> I'd be glad to lend a helping hand both with the patches and with testing
> on non-Voyager - especially the SMP bits probably need extensions on the
> x86_quirks side. (And i'm sure the other x86 maintainers would we glad to
> help out with this process too.)
> x86/Voyager is the last holdout in this area, and with an active kernel
> developer like James behind it it ought to be fixable - should James have
> the time/interest.

But no-one's yet made any argument for why it's a worthwhile thing to be

> If there's no time/interest in that then we can temporarily mark Voyager
> CONFIG_BROKEN until cleanup/fix patches arrive.

It's not broken and I've already sent you the cleanup/fix patches ... I
can send them directly to Linus as voyager maintainer if you prefer.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at