lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1603191011320.3978@nanos>
Date:	Sat, 19 Mar 2016 10:24:59 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, bp@...en8.de,
	aherrmann@...e.com, jencce.kernel@...il.com,
	Rui Huang <ray.huang@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/topology: Fix AMD core count

On Fri, 18 Mar 2016, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> It turns out AMD gets x86_max_cores wrong when there are compute
> units.
> 
> The issue is that Linux assumes:
> 
> 	nr_logical_cpus = nr_cores * nr_siblings
> 
> But AMD reports its CU unit as 2 cores, but then sets num_smp_siblings
> to 2 as well.
> 
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Andreas Herrmann <aherrmann@...e.com>
> Reported-by: Xiong Zhou <jencce.kernel@...il.com>
> Fixes: 1f12e32f4cd5 ("x86/topology: Create logical package id")
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20160317095220.GO6344@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c |    8 ++++----
>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c |   11 ++++++-----
>  2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> 
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/amd.c
> @@ -313,9 +313,9 @@ static void amd_get_topology(struct cpui
>  		node_id = ecx & 7;
>  
>  		/* get compute unit information */
> -		smp_num_siblings = ((ebx >> 8) & 3) + 1;
> +		cores_per_cu = smp_num_siblings = ((ebx >> 8) & 3) + 1;
> +		c->x86_max_cores /= smp_num_siblings;

Unfortunately that will break stuff in event/amd/core.c, ras/mce_amd_inj.c
which rely on the AMD interpretation of c->x86_max_cores.

I'm seriously grumpy about pointless inconsistent representations depending on
the CPU vendor. That's just lazy and sloppy hackery from the "works for me"
departement.

For now we'll get away with Peters workaround for the Intel HT mess, which is
a different kind of mental insanity invented by HW/BIOS people, but this
topology stuff needs to be made consistent ASAP.

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ