[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 13:30:37 -0700
From: Sohil Mehta <sohil.mehta@...el.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <x86@...nel.org>, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@....com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Huang Rui" <ray.huang@....com>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
Michael Kelley <mikelley@...rosoft.com>,
"K Prateek Nayak" <kprateek.nayak@....com>,
Kan Liang <kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>,
Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
"Andy Shevchenko" <andy@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/53] x86/topology: The final installment
On 8/8/2023 12:10 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> That's indeed weird. Can you please provide:
>
> - the output of 'cpuid -r'
> - the output of /sys/kernel/debug/x86/topo/domains
> - the APIC IDs of all CPUs (see below patch)
>
Domains
-------
domain: Thread shift: 1 dom_size: 2 max_threads: 2
domain: Core shift: 5 dom_size: 16 max_threads: 32
domain: Module shift: 5 dom_size: 1 max_threads: 32
domain: Tile shift: 5 dom_size: 1 max_threads: 32
domain: Die shift: 5 dom_size: 1 max_threads: 32
domain: Package shift: 5 dom_size: 1 max_threads: 32
Attached the cpuid output and the apic id list.
Also, I see a warning message that only seems to show up with the final
installment series applied. I attached the complete dmesg as well (just
in case):
unchecked MSR access error: WRMSR to 0xe44 (tried to write
0x0000000000000003) at rIP: 0xffffffff8d2a6698 (native_write_msr+0x8/0x30)
Call Trace:
<TASK>
? show_stack_regs+0x27/0x30
? ex_handler_msr+0x10f/0x180
? search_extable+0x2b/0x40
? fixup_exception+0x315/0x380
? exc_general_protection+0x139/0x460
? idr_alloc_cyclic+0x59/0xc0
? asm_exc_general_protection+0x2b/0x30
? native_write_msr+0x8/0x30
? ivbep_uncore_msr_init_box+0x47/0x60
uncore_box_ref.part.0+0xa6/0xe0
uncore_event_cpu_online+0x6e/0x1c0
? __pfx_uncore_event_cpu_online+0x10/0x10
cpuhp_invoke_callback+0x165/0x4b0
? try_to_wake_up+0x284/0x6b0
cpuhp_thread_fun+0xc4/0x1e0
? __pfx_smpboot_thread_fn+0x10/0x10
smpboot_thread_fn+0xe7/0x1e0
kthread+0xfb/0x130
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork+0x40/0x60
? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10
ret_from_fork_asm+0x1b/0x30
</TASK>
>
> Please apply the topology hunks first without the ACPI changes and then
> try the ACPI change on top.
>
There are compile issues with the ACPI hunk.
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c: In function ‘acpi_parse_lapic’:
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:250:31: error: ‘apic_id’ undeclared (first use in this function)
> 250 | if (has_lapic_cpus && apic_id < 0xff)
> | ^~~~~~~
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:250:31: note: each undeclared identifier is reported only once for each function it appears in
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c: In function ‘acpi_parse_madt_lapic_entries’:
> arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c:1097:47: error: ‘ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_LAPIC’ undeclared (first use in this function); did you mean ‘ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_SAPIC’?
> 1097 | count = acpi_table_parse_madt(ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_LAPIC,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> | ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_SAPIC
Did I miss applying something? I didn't try to understand and fix them.
Sohil
View attachment "cpuid.txt" of type "text/plain" (109110 bytes)
View attachment "apic-ids.txt" of type "text/plain" (7088 bytes)
View attachment "dmesg.txt" of type "text/plain" (103780 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists