Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Sep 2007 17:32:24 -0400 | From | Dave Jones <> | Subject | Re: Why do so many machines need "noapic"? |
| |
On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 01:08:25PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Sep 15, 2007 at 04:08:02AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > I believe that about two years ago we broke something which caused quite a > > large number of people to need noapic. Is that the case with any of your > > machines? Do you know if they run 2.6.ancient without noapic? > > My recollection is that we shifted from "Enable the apic even if the > BIOS disabled it" to "Only use the apic if the BIOS didn't disable it" > around that time, which meant that distributions could actually turn on > apic-on-up support without breaking everything. That might correspond to > what you're seeing.
If memory serves correctly, that was circa 2.6.10, back in these commits..
commit a068ea13d1db406e15c346e93530343f6e70184c Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Date: Sun Oct 10 05:21:08 2004 -0400
[ACPI] If BIOS disabled the LAPIC, believe it by default. "lapic" is available to force enabling the LAPIC in the event you know more than your BIOS vendor. http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3238
commit 2fcfece90db9643b6f30a7ad343898a2871e6a81 Author: Len Brown <len.brown@intel.com> Date: Sat Oct 9 20:12:45 2004 -0400
[ACPI] Don't enable LAPIC when the BIOS disabled it. Doing so apparently breaks every Dell on Earth. http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3238
But those changes relate to the local APIC, which 'noapic' shouldn't have any effect on should it ?
Dave
-- http://www.codemonkey.org.uk - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |