[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CY8PR11MB71348FE4A5684E941992B5CA89FA2@CY8PR11MB7134.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 03:16:49 +0000
From: "Zhuo, Qiuxu" <qiuxu.zhuo@...el.com>
To: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>, "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@...r.kernel.org" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>,
"Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com"
<Smita.KoralahalliChannabasappa@....com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 07/16] x86/mce: Define BSP-only init
> From: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@....com>
> [...]
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c index 302a310d0630..a4ef4ff1a7ff 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> @@ -656,9 +656,6 @@ void mce_amd_feature_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> u32 low = 0, high = 0, address = 0;
> int offset = -1;
>
> - mce_flags.overflow_recov =
> cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_OVERFLOW_RECOV);
> - mce_flags.succor =
> cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SUCCOR);
> - mce_flags.smca =
> cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SMCA);
> mce_flags.amd_threshold = 1;
>
> [...]
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/core.c
> [...]
> +/* Called only on the boot CPU. */
> +void cpu_mca_init(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c) {
> + u64 cap;
> +
> + if (!mce_available(c))
> + return;
> +
> + mce_flags.overflow_recov =
> cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_OVERFLOW_RECOV);
> + mce_flags.succor =
> cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SUCCOR);
> + mce_flags.smca =
> cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_SMCA);
1. Before this patch set, the above code was executed only if the following
condition was true. Do we still need this check?
if (c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_AMD || c->x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_HYGON)
{
The above code.
}
2. Can " mce_flags.amd_threshold = 1;" also be moved here?
-Qiuxu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists