[SeaBIOS] [Qemu-devel] [SeaBIOS PATCH 2/2] allow CPUs to have non-contiguous Local APIC IDs (v2)

[Eduardo Habkost]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 07:08:19PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/26/2012 06:07 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 05:55:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 07/26/2012 05:16 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >> >> > 
> >> >> > It's possible to replace the atomic read of CountCPUs with the bitmap weight
> >> >> > calculation on the loop, but: is it really worth it?
> >> >> > 
> >> >> Why not? This eliminates one more global state.
> >> > 
> >> > Maybe we can simply make it stop being global and be used only by the
> >> > smp.c initialization code?
> >> > 
> >> > Even if the variable didn't exist yet, I think I would add it myself:
> >> > it's simpler and more efficient to calculate the bitmap weight once,
> >> > while filling the bitmap, than recalculating it every time on the
> >> > while(cmos_smp_count) loop.
> >> 
> >> So you're spinning more efficiently?
> > 
> > No, coding more efficiently. I'm lazy. :-)
> > 
> > I don't want to risk breaking that part of the code to save 2 bytes of
> > memory. It's possible to impement it reliably, yes, but it's also very
> > easy to introduce a subtle bug, so why touch something that works
> > perfectly just to save 2 bytes?
> 
> Like gleb, I prefer avoiding derived state which can get out-of-sync.

It is calculated only once on boot, and only used inside smp_probe() and
nowhere else (after applying this series, I mean). Personally I am more
afraid of subtle races between the bit-setting and the (non-atomic)
bitmap weight calculation + loop, than getting CountCPUs out of sync
while smp_probe() runs.

Note that I am all for making it not a global variable anymore, and use
it only inside smp_probe() and nowhere else (this series does that, the
only thing missing is to remove it from util.h). If anybody wants to
eliminate it from smp_probe() too, be my guest. :)

(I am hoping this is just a suggestion of an additional improvement, not
an issue that would block this patch from inclusion)

-- 
Eduardo