From: Borislav Petkov <bp@amd64.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andi Kleen <ak@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86, intel: Output microcode revision
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 12:50:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110525105057.GA21830@gere.osrc.amd.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110525090501.GA28500@elte.hu>
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:05:01AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Frankly, I'm not even 100% persuaded this is needed. The coretemp.c
> > jump-through-hoops to get the ucode revision is maybe the only case
> > that warrants adding that field to /proc/cpuinfo.
> I've often wondered whether the CPU involved in a particular bugreport
> has the latest microcode installed.
Ok, that's a good point, actually.
> Sure we have /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpuN/microcode/version, but
> that's both privileged to get
Not only that but you have to load the ucode driver to be able to read
it. /proc/cpuinfo looks like the easiest and most generic place.
> and also has to be asked for separately.
yes.
>
> Arguably the microcode version is a natural extension to the existing
> family/model/stepping sequence:
>
> cpu family : 6
> model : 26
> stepping : 5
>
> We'd now see:
>
> cpu family : 6
> model : 26
> stepping : 5
> ucode_version : 17
>
> Where 'stepping' is a hardware revison number and 'ucode_version' is
> a dual software/hw revision number.
Right.
Btw, can we dump the ucode version in hex since ours are much easier to
read that way:
[86483.770976] microcode: CPU0: patch_level=0x010000c4
[86483.826987] microcode: CPU1: patch_level=0x010000c4
[86483.835071] microcode: CPU2: patch_level=0x010000c4
...
I guess for Intel the ucode version format won't matter that much.
> > > > @@ -111,6 +111,8 @@ struct cpuinfo_x86 {
> > > > /* Index into per_cpu list: */
> > > > u16 cpu_index;
> > > > #endif
> > > > + /* CPU update signature */
> > > > + u32 x86_cpu_update;
> > >
> > > This should be cpu_microcode_version instead. We already know its x86 so the
> > > x86_ prefix is superfluous. 'cpu_update' is also rather ambigious and does not
> > > describe much.
> >
> > Or shorter: 'cpu_ucode_version'.
>
> We already know it's a cpu data structure, since it's called 'struct
> cpuinfo_x86' and the local variable is named 'c' which is the typical
> shortcut for that data structure.
>
> so c->ucode_version is the right name here.
even better.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
General Managers: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd
Registration: Dornach, Gemeinde Aschheim, Landkreis Muenchen
Registergericht Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-05-25 10:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-05-24 23:03 Andi Kleen
2011-05-24 23:03 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86, intel: Use cpu_update for Atom errata check Andi Kleen
2011-05-25 6:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-24 23:03 ` [PATCH 3/3] coretemp: Get microcode revision from cpu_data Andi Kleen
2011-05-24 23:58 ` Yu, Fenghua
2011-05-25 0:39 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86, intel: Output microcode revision Fenghua Yu
[not found] ` <BANLkTikoa494-bRWtbbXuE6eqLuH0ZPUTg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <493994B35A117E4F832F97C4719C4C04011E214EC2@orsmsx505.amr.corp.intel.com>
2011-05-25 0:47 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-25 6:54 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 8:00 ` Borislav Petkov
2011-05-25 9:05 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 10:50 ` Borislav Petkov [this message]
2011-05-25 11:28 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 21:08 ` Borislav Petkov
2011-05-25 11:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 16:54 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-25 18:59 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 19:13 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-25 7:06 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 16:06 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2011-05-25 16:58 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-25 18:24 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 19:04 ` Henrique de Moraes Holschuh
2011-05-25 19:36 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-25 19:05 ` Andi Kleen
2011-05-25 19:45 ` Ingo Molnar
2011-05-29 10:21 ` Jan Ceuleers
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110525105057.GA21830@gere.osrc.amd.com \
--to=bp@amd64.org \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome