On Sun, Mar 07, 2010 at 02:44:50PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Jan Kiszka wrote:
> > Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 02:03:54PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> BTW, do real systems allow to hot plug BSP as well? Or how is the case
> handled when you unplug the BSP and then re
Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 02:03:54PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
BTW, do real systems allow to hot plug BSP as well? Or how is the case
handled when you unplug the BSP and then reboot the box?
>>> Did you mean hot unplug BSP? OS determines what
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 02:03:54PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> BTW, do real systems allow to hot plug BSP as well? Or how is the case
>>> handled when you unplug the BSP and then reboot the box?
>>>
>> Did you mean hot unplug BSP? OS determines what CPU is BSP by checking
>
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 02:03:54PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > BTW, do real systems allow to hot plug BSP as well? Or how is the case
> > handled when you unplug the BSP and then reboot the box?
> >
> Did you mean hot unplug BSP? OS determines what CPU is BSP by checking
> BSP bit in APIC base
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:35:45PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 09:23:46AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:34:22AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 06:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 09:23:46AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:34:22AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 06:17:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> As we hard-wire the BSP to CPU 0
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 09:23:46AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:34:22AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 06:17:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> As we hard-wire the BSP to CPU 0 anyway and cpuid_apic_
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:34:22AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> Gleb Natapov wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 06:17:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
As we hard-wire the BSP to CPU 0 anyway and cpuid_apic_id equals
cpu_index, cpu_is_bsp can also be based on the latter d
On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:34:22AM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 06:17:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> >> As we hard-wire the BSP to CPU 0 anyway and cpuid_apic_id equals
> >> cpu_index, cpu_is_bsp can also be based on the latter directly. This
> >> will
Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 06:17:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> As we hard-wire the BSP to CPU 0 anyway and cpuid_apic_id equals
>> cpu_index, cpu_is_bsp can also be based on the latter directly. This
>> will help an early user of it: KVM while initializing mp_state.
>>
>> Sign
On Mon, Mar 01, 2010 at 06:17:22PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> As we hard-wire the BSP to CPU 0 anyway and cpuid_apic_id equals
> cpu_index, cpu_is_bsp can also be based on the latter directly. This
> will help an early user of it: KVM while initializing mp_state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka
> -
11 matches
Mail list logo