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

Groups > linux.kernel > #1519047

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

From Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more
Date 2016-11-10 16:20 +0100
Message-ID <sBZj0-7Uk-5@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (8 earlier) <sBhrz-3gP-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBD8K-HA-35@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBOGW-8w1-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBVyG-5qG-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBYdc-7fw-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 11/10/2016 06:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote:
> >
> >> I have found that your patch unfortunately does not improve the situation
> >> for me. Here is an excerpt obtained from the dmesg of a kernel compiled
> >> with this patch *as well as* Sebastian's patch:
> >> [    0.002561] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
> >> [    0.002566] CPU: Processor Core ID: 0
> >> [    0.002572] [Firmware Bug]: CPU0: APIC id mismatch. Firmware: ffff CPUID: 2
> > So apic->cpu_present_to_apicid() gives us a completely bogus APIC id which
> > translates to a bogus package id. And looking at the XEN code:
> >
> >    xen_pv_apic.cpu_present_to_apicid = xen_cpu_present_to_apicid,
> >
> > and xen_cpu_present_to_apicid does:
> >
> > static int xen_cpu_present_to_apicid(int cpu)
> > {
> >         if (cpu_present(cpu))
> >                 return xen_get_apic_id(xen_apic_read(APIC_ID));
> >         else
> >                 return BAD_APICID;
> > }
> >
> > So independent of which present CPU we query we get just some random
> > information, in the above case we get BAD_APICID from xen_apic_read() not
> > from the else path as this CPU _IS_ present.
> >
> > What's so wrong with storing the fricking firmware supplied APICid as
> > everybody else does and report it back when queried?
> 
> By firmware you mean ACPI? It is most likely not available to PV guests.

You either have to provide ACPI or MP tables. And either of those has to
provide the intial APIC ids for the CPUs. They are supposed to match the
IDs which are in the CPUID leafs.

> How about returning cpu_data(cpu).initial_apicid?

For a not yet brought up CPU. That's what the initial ACPI/MP table
enumeration is for.

Thanks,

	tglx

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