Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:39:55 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Marius Strobl <marius@alchemy.franken.de> Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar <xcllnt@mac.com>, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: removal of ipi_all() and ipi_self() [Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sparc64/include smp.h src/sys/sparc64/sparc64 genassym.c mp_machdep.c] Message-ID: <200809221639.56429.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20080920231152.GA67442@alchemy.franken.de> References: <200809181356.m8IDuaxT089888@repoman.freebsd.org> <89B9A8BE-05F2-4DB2-B7B2-AB240AA9F0DD@mac.com> <20080920231152.GA67442@alchemy.franken.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 20 September 2008 07:11:53 pm Marius Strobl wrote: > On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 12:48:52PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 2008, at 12:19 PM, Marius Strobl wrote: > > > > >On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 10:27:51AM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > > >>On Thursday 18 September 2008 09:56:30 am Marius Strobl wrote: > > >>>marius 2008-09-18 13:56:30 UTC > > >>> > > >>> FreeBSD src repository > > >>> > > >>> Modified files: > > >>> sys/sparc64/include smp.h > > >>> sys/sparc64/sparc64 genassym.c mp_machdep.c > > >>> Log: > > >>> SVN rev 183142 on 2008-09-18 13:56:30Z by marius > > >>> > > >>> - Newer firmware versions no longer provide SUNW,stop-self so just > > >>> disable interrupts and loop forever with these. > > >>> - Hide all MP-related bits in <machine/smp.h> underneath #ifdef > > >>>SMP. > > >>> - Inline ipi_all_but_self(9) and ipi_selected(9). We don't expose > > >>>any > > >>> additional bits but save a few cycles by doing so. > > >>> - Remove ipi_all(9), which actually only called panic(9). It > > >>>can't be > > >>> implemented natively anyway and having it removed at least causes > > >>> MI users to fail already fail when linking. > > >> > > >>Should we just remove ipi_all() completely? > > >> > > > > > >Well, grepping in the CVS repository shows that there never was > > >an actually consumer of ipi_all() (only #ifdef'ed out ones in > > >ironically the sparc64 code) so it seems to be a good candidate > > >for axing. Generally I can't think of a reason why MI code would > > >want a CPU to send an IPI to itself. Actually, ipi_self() also > > >isn't and never was used in MI code, only in ia64 and powerpc > > >code for testing purposes. > > > > That's DS (=developer-specific) code rather than MI or MD code :-) > > > > Sending a test IPI to 'self' helps with bring-up or porting, but > > serves no real purpose (other than maybe a POST-like purpose) > > once IPIs are known to work... > > > > Okay, I take these as a call for removing ipi_all() and ipi_self() > along with the ia64 and powerpc test IPI code completely. A patch > doing just that and which passes a universe build just fine is at: > http://people.freebsd.org/~marius/nuke_ipi_all_self.diff > Does anybody object to committing it? Should __FreeBSD_version be > bumped for this? I think this is ok. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200809221639.56429.jhb>