[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y8yvRb3Af+2V1+r0@a4bf019067fa.jf.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2023 19:36:37 -0800
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
CC: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Stefan Talpalaru <stefantalpalaru@...oo.com>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Peter Zilstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Andy Lutomirski" <luto@...nel.org>,
Andrew Cooper <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Martin Pohlack <mpohlack@...zon.de>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [Part 2 v2[cleanup] 4/4] x86/microcode: Do not call
apply_microde() on sibling threads
On Sat, Jan 21, 2023 at 01:35:12PM -0800, Ashok Raj wrote:
[snip]
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c | 8 ++++----
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> index 6ade3d59c404..089636b1643f 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
> @@ -386,6 +386,7 @@ static int __wait_for_cpus(atomic_t *t, long long timeout)
> */
> static int __reload_late(void *info)
> {
> + struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
In a quest to keep the christmas tree effect, screwed up the ordering.
I fixed it before i resent the next time. Modified diff below.
> int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> enum ucode_state err;
> int ret = 0;
> @@ -422,12 +423,11 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)
>
> /*
> * At least one thread has completed update on each core.
> - * For others, simply call the update to make sure the
> - * per-cpu cpuinfo can be updated with right microcode
> - * revision.
> + * For siblings, collect the cpuinfo and update the
> + * per-cpu cpuinfo with the current microcode revision.
> */
> if (cpumask_first(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)) != cpu)
> - err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
> + microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(cpu, &uci->cpu_sig);
>
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
index 6ade3d59c404..07764c1a2dd3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -387,6 +387,7 @@ static int __wait_for_cpus(atomic_t *t, long long timeout)
static int __reload_late(void *info)
{
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+ struct ucode_cpu_info *uci;
enum ucode_state err;
int ret = 0;
@@ -422,12 +423,13 @@ static int __reload_late(void *info)
/*
* At least one thread has completed update on each core.
- * For others, simply call the update to make sure the
- * per-cpu cpuinfo can be updated with right microcode
- * revision.
+ * For siblings, collect the cpuinfo and update the
+ * per-cpu cpuinfo with the current microcode revision.
*/
- if (cpumask_first(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)) != cpu)
- err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
+ if (cpumask_first(topology_sibling_cpumask(cpu)) != cpu) {
+ uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
+ microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(cpu, &uci->cpu_sig);
+ }
return ret;
}
Powered by blists - more mailing lists