[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZNVNibrpZ9bJLok7@araj-mobl.amr.corp.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 13:50:17 -0700
From: Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 28/30] x86/microcode: Handle "offline" CPUs correctly
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:46:05PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 08:38:07PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> > for_each_cpu_and(cpu, cpu_present_mask, &cpus_booted_once_mask) {
> > + /*
> > + * Offline CPUs sit in one of the play_dead() functions
> > + * with interrupts disabled, but they still react on NMIs
> > + * and execute arbitrary code. Also MWAIT being updated
> > + * while the offline CPU sits there is not necessarily safe
> > + * on all CPU variants.
> > + *
> > + * Mark them in the offline_cpus mask which will be handled
> > + * by CPU0 later in the update process.
> > + *
> > + * Ensure that the primary thread is online so that it is
> > + * guaranteed that all cores are updated.
> > + */
> > if (!cpu_online(cpu)) {
> > + if (topology_is_primary_thread(cpu) || !allow_smt_offline) {
> > + pr_err("CPU %u not online, loading aborted\n", cpu);
>
> We could make the NMI handler do the ucode load, no? Also, you just need
> any thread online, don't particularly care about primary thread or not
> afaict.
Patch 25 does that load in NMI. You are right, we just need "a" CPU in each
core online.
>
> > return false;
> > }
> > + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &cpu_offline_mask);
> > + per_cpu(ucode_ctrl, cpu) = ctrl;
> > + continue;
> > }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists