[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B2A7C50.5080403@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:45:36 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] microcode: do not WARN_ON(cpu != 0) during resume
On 12/17/2009 05:53 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 871b72dd "x86: microcode: use smp_call_function_single instead of
> set_cpus_allowed, cleanup of synchronization logic" included:
>
> static int mc_sysdev_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> {
> [...]
> + /*
> + * All non-bootup cpus are still disabled,
> + * so only CPU 0 will apply ucode here.
> + *
> + * Moreover, there can be no concurrent
> + * updates from any other places at this point.
> + */
> + WARN_ON(cpu != 0);
>
> However suspend/resume under Xen doesn't need to hot unplug all the CPUs, so we
> don't; the hypervisor can manage the context save/restore for all CPUs.
>
Did you see a problem with this in practice, or just by inspection?
The Xen microcode driver will only load in a privileged domain, so I
don't think this path can ever be exercised.
Regardless, the Xen microcode driver changes aren't upstream yet, so
there's no need to apply this there yet.
Thanks,
J
> It would be unnecessary to load microcode.ko in a Xen domU but if it does occur
> (e.g. because a distro installs the tools by default) we would like to avoid
> the warning on resume.
>
> Since the real constraint here is that we are running on the CPU for which we
> would like to load microcode (which in all practical circumstances is CPU0)
> just check for that and return if we are resuming a different CPU.
>
> There is no danger of concurrent updates, even if we ignore the fact that all
> but one CPUs are unplugged on native, because sysdev_resume() is single
> threaded.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell<ian.campbell@...rix.com>
> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge<jeremy@...p.org>
> Cc: Dmitry Adamushko<dmitry.adamushko@...il.com>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins<hugh@...itas.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar<mingo@...e.hu>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c | 11 +----------
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> index 378e9a8..1153062 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> @@ -438,18 +438,9 @@ static int mc_sysdev_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> int cpu = dev->id;
> struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
>
> - if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> + if (cpu != smp_processor_id())
> return 0;
>
> - /*
> - * All non-bootup cpus are still disabled,
> - * so only CPU 0 will apply ucode here.
> - *
> - * Moreover, there can be no concurrent
> - * updates from any other places at this point.
> - */
> - WARN_ON(cpu != 0);
> -
> if (uci->valid&& uci->mc)
> microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists