Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1518362

Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more

From "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more
Date 2016-11-09 19:20 +0100
Message-ID <sBFDA-2qo-37@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (5 earlier) <sBfzr-24a-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBfJ8-275-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBg2u-2e5-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBhrz-3gP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBD8K-HA-35@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 11/09/2016 10:35 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> Both ACPI and MP specifications require that the APIC id in the respective
> tables must be the same as the APIC id in CPUID.
>
> The kernel retrieves the physical package id from the APIC id during the
> ACPI/MP table scan and builds the physical to logical package map.
>
> There exist Virtualbox and Xen implementations which violate the spec. As a
> result the physical to logical package map, which relies on the ACPI/MP
> tables does not work on those systems, because the CPUID initialized
> physical package id does not match the firmware id. This causes system
> crashes and malfunction due to invalid package mappings.
>
> The only way to cure this is to sanitize the physical package id after the
> CPUID enumeration and yell when the APIC ids are different. If the physical
> package IDs differ use the package information from the ACPI/MP tables so
> the existing logical package map just works.
>
> Reported-by: "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com>,
> Reported-by: M. Vefa Bicakci <m.v.b@runbox.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>


For 4 virtual sockets, 1 core per socket VM:

[    0.235459] .... node  #0, CPUs:      #1
[    0.238579] Disabled fast string operations
[    0.238620] mce: CPU supports 0 MCE banks
[    0.238864] [Firmware Bug]: CPU1: APIC id mismatch. Firmware: 1 CPUID: 2
[    0.238878] [Firmware Bug]: CPU1: Using firmware package id 1 instead of 2
[    0.239502]  #2
[    0.241298] Disabled fast string operations
[    0.241356] mce: CPU supports 0 MCE banks
[    0.241429] [Firmware Bug]: CPU2: APIC id mismatch. Firmware: 2 CPUID: 4
[    0.241431] [Firmware Bug]: CPU2: Using firmware package id 2 instead of 4
[    0.241631]  #3
[    0.244075] Disabled fast string operations
[    0.244112] mce: CPU supports 0 MCE banks
[    0.244284] [Firmware Bug]: CPU3: APIC id mismatch. Firmware: 3 CPUID: 6
[    0.244293] [Firmware Bug]: CPU3: Using firmware package id 3 instead of 6

For a 2 virtual sockets, 2 cores per socket, VMware seems to get its
APIC table correct as this fixup code isn't triggered.  The mapping looks like:

[    0.028911] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 0  pkg 0  cpu 0
[    0.029068] smpboot: APIC(0) Converting physical 0 to logical package 0, cpu 0
[    0.029072] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 1  pkg 0  cpu 1
[    0.029220] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 2  pkg 1  cpu 2
[    0.029376] smpboot: APIC(2) Converting physical 1 to logical package 1, cpu 2
[    0.029381] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 3  pkg 1  cpu 3
[    0.029525] smpboot: Max logical packages: 2

For a VM with 1 virtual socket and 4 cores, the behavior is again correct.

[    0.016198] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 0  pkg 0  cpu 0
[    0.016271] smpboot: APIC(0) Converting physical 0 to logical package 0, cpu 0 (ffff88023fc0a040)
[    0.016273] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 1  pkg 0  cpu 1
[    0.016336] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 2  pkg 0  cpu 2
[    0.016397] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 3  pkg 0  cpu 3

It looks like VMware might have some assumption about the minimum number
of cores on a virtual socket.  Regardless, the fix solves my problem!

Thanks!

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-02 13:30 +0100
  Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-02 23:50 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-03 18:50 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-04 13:30 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-04 19:10 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-04 21:50 +0100
            Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-04 22:00 +0100
    Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate  memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-07 17:30 +0100
      Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-07 18:10 +0100
        Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate  memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-07 21:30 +0100
          Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-08 15:30 +0100
            Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate  memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-08 15:40 +0100
              Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-08 16:00 +0100
                Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate  memory Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-08 17:30 +0100
                [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-09 16:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-09 16:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-09 17:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-09 17:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-09 19:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-09 19:20 +0100
                [tip:x86/urgent] x86/cpu: Deal with broken firmware (VMWare/XEN) tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner <tipbot@zytor.com> - 2016-11-09 21:30 +0100
                Re: [tip:x86/urgent] x86/cpu: Deal with broken firmware (VMWare/XEN) Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com> - 2016-11-11 07:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com> - 2016-11-10 05:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-10 12:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 12:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 12:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> - 2016-11-10 12:50 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 15:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> - 2016-11-10 16:10 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 16:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 17:00 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 18:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 16:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 16:40 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> - 2016-11-10 18:20 +0100
                Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com> - 2016-11-10 19:10 +0100

csiph-web