Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1517258
| From | "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory |
| Date | 2016-11-08 16:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sBg2u-2e5-21@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (2 earlier) <sAUY2-5vP-27@gated-at.bofh.it> <sAVAK-62m-41@gated-at.bofh.it> <sAYIh-87K-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBfzr-24a-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <sBfJ8-275-17@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On 11/08/2016 09:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
>> [ 0.016335] topology_update_package_map: apicid 0 pkg 0 cpu 0
>> [ 0.016398] smpboot: APIC(0) Converting physical 0 to logical
>> package 0, cpu 0 (ffff88023fc0a040)
>> [ 0.016399] topology_update_package_map: apicid 1 pkg 1 cpu 1
>> [ 0.016462] smpboot: APIC(1) Converting physical 1 to logical
>> package 1, cpu 1 (ffff88023fd0a040)
>>
>> So, I don't know where apic->cpu_present_to_apicid(cpu) is getting its
>> apicid but it certainly doesn't seem to the match the apicid in the
>> CPU's registers. For whatever reason, my VMware system is reporting
>> that the second CPU has a local APIC ID of 2:
>
> The initial information comes from MP tables or ACPI.
>
>> [ 0.009115] identify_cpu: cpu_index 0 phys_proc_id is now 0,
>> apicid 0, initial_apicid 0
>> ...
>> [ 0.237401] identify_cpu: cpu_index 1 phys_proc_id is now 2,
>> apicid 2, initial_apicid 2
>
> And the CPUID emulation tells something different. Sigh!
>
>> I was thinking it might be better to call topology_update_package_map()
>> at the bottom of identify_cpu() to setup the secondary CPU's. The boot
>> cpu could be setup during smp_init_package_map().
>
> Perhaps, but that does not make the inconsistencies go away....
By the time I know it's not consistent, there isn't anything I can do
about it. I can't update the table to remove the bad information.
The other alternative, is to trust the ACPI and just update the
cpu_data's apicid in identify_cpu() to the value from the table.
The earlier kernels didn't seem to rely as much on this information.
But it does appear to be "wrong" in the APIC table. From acpidump:
[02Ch 0044 1] Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Local APIC]
[02Dh 0045 1] Length : 08
[02Eh 0046 1] Processor ID : 00
[02Fh 0047 1] Local Apic ID : 00
[030h 0048 4] Flags (decoded below) : 00000001
Processor Enabled : 1
[034h 0052 1] Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Local APIC]
[035h 0053 1] Length : 08
[036h 0054 1] Processor ID : 01
[037h 0055 1] Local Apic ID : 01
[038h 0056 4] Flags (decoded below) : 00000001
Processor Enabled : 1
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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