lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] microcode: do not WARN_ON(cpu != 0) during resume
On 12/17/2009 05:53 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> 871b72dd "x86: microcode: use smp_call_function_single instead of
> set_cpus_allowed, cleanup of synchronization logic" included:
>
> static int mc_sysdev_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> {
> [...]
> + /*
> + * All non-bootup cpus are still disabled,
> + * so only CPU 0 will apply ucode here.
> + *
> + * Moreover, there can be no concurrent
> + * updates from any other places at this point.
> + */
> + WARN_ON(cpu != 0);
>
> However suspend/resume under Xen doesn't need to hot unplug all the CPUs, so we
> don't; the hypervisor can manage the context save/restore for all CPUs.
>

Did you see a problem with this in practice, or just by inspection?

The Xen microcode driver will only load in a privileged domain, so I
don't think this path can ever be exercised.

Regardless, the Xen microcode driver changes aren't upstream yet, so
there's no need to apply this there yet.

Thanks,
J

> It would be unnecessary to load microcode.ko in a Xen domU but if it does occur
> (e.g. because a distro installs the tools by default) we would like to avoid
> the warning on resume.
>
> Since the real constraint here is that we are running on the CPU for which we
> would like to load microcode (which in all practical circumstances is CPU0)
> just check for that and return if we are resuming a different CPU.
>
> There is no danger of concurrent updates, even if we ignore the fact that all
> but one CPUs are unplugged on native, because sysdev_resume() is single
> threaded.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ian Campbell<ian.campbell@citrix.com>
> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge<jeremy@goop.org>
> Cc: Dmitry Adamushko<dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
> Cc: Hugh Dickins<hugh@veritas.com>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar<mingo@elte.hu>
> ---
> arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c | 11 +----------
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> index 378e9a8..1153062 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
> @@ -438,18 +438,9 @@ static int mc_sysdev_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
> int cpu = dev->id;
> struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
>
> - if (!cpu_online(cpu))
> + if (cpu != smp_processor_id())
> return 0;
>
> - /*
> - * All non-bootup cpus are still disabled,
> - * so only CPU 0 will apply ucode here.
> - *
> - * Moreover, there can be no concurrent
> - * updates from any other places at this point.
> - */
> - WARN_ON(cpu != 0);
> -
> if (uci->valid&& uci->mc)
> microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
>
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-12-17 19:49    [W:0.060 / U:0.508 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site