From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 22 21:09:33 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC40E1065675; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:09:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from server.baldwin.cx (bigknife-pt.tunnel.tserv9.chi1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f10:75::2]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C5888FC2E; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:09:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost.corp.yahoo.com (john@localhost [IPv6:::1]) (authenticated bits=0) by server.baldwin.cx (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m8ML9A92063662; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:09:24 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) From: John Baldwin To: Marius Strobl Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:39:55 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.7 References: <200809181356.m8IDuaxT089888@repoman.freebsd.org> <89B9A8BE-05F2-4DB2-B7B2-AB240AA9F0DD@mac.com> <20080920231152.GA67442@alchemy.franken.de> In-Reply-To: <20080920231152.GA67442@alchemy.franken.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200809221639.56429.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (server.baldwin.cx [IPv6:::1]); Mon, 22 Sep 2008 17:09:24 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.1/8310/Mon Sep 22 14:58:13 2008 on server.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,NO_RELAYS autolearn=ham version=3.1.3 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on server.baldwin.cx Cc: cvs-src@freebsd.org, Marcel Moolenaar , 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] X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:09:33 -0000 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 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