From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
x86@kernel.org, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 23/30] x86/microcode: Provide new control functions
Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2023 22:25:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230810202519.GD212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230810160806.278309863@linutronix.de>
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 08:38:00PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>
> The current all in one code is unreadable and really not suited for adding
> future features like uniform loading with package or system scope.
>
> Provide a set of new control functions which split the handling of the
> primary and secondary CPUs. These will replace the current rendevouz all in
> one function in the next step. This is intentionally a separate change
> because diff makes an complete unreadable mess otherwise.
>
> So the flow separates the primary and the secondary CPUs into their own
> functions, which use the control field in the per CPU ucode_ctrl struct.
>
> primary() secondary()
> wait_for_all() wait_for_all()
> apply_ucode() wait_for_release()
> release() apply_ucode()
This hard assumes SMT2, right? If someone were ever to do an x86 smt4
part then smt siblings 1,2,3 would all apply concurrently in secondary,
is that intended?
> + /*
> + * Wait for primary threads to complete. If one of them hangs due
> + * to the update, there is no way out. This is non-recoverable
> + * because the CPU might hold locks or resources and confuse the
> + * scheduler, watchdogs etc. There is no way to safely evacuate the
> + * machine.
> + */
> + if (!wait_for_ctrl())
> + panic("Microcode load: Primary CPU %d timed out\n", ctrl_cpu);
One way around this is to first hot-unplug the CPUs, then NMI prod them
into the rendevous, and only on-line them again if ucode update is
successful. On failure stick them in a (new) error state so that manual
online also fails and scream murder, like above.
But yeah, rather unlikely, and for another day etc..
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-08-10 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 53+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-08-10 18:37 [patch 00/30] x86/microcode: Cleanup and late loading enhancements Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 01/30] x86/mm: Remove unused microcode.h include Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 02/30] x86/microcode: Hide the config knob Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 20:41 ` Ashok Raj
2023-08-11 11:22 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 03/30] x86/microcode/intel: Move microcode functions out of cpu/intel.c Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 04/30] x86/microcode: Include vendor headers into microcode.h Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 05/30] x86/microcode: Make reload_early_microcode() static Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 06/30] x86/microcode/intel: Rename get_datasize() since its used externally Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 07/30] x86/microcode: Move core specific defines to local header Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 08/30] x86/microcode/intel: Rip out mixed stepping support for Intel CPUs Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-11 22:25 ` Borislav Petkov
2023-08-12 7:16 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 09/30] x86/microcode/intel: Remove debug code Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-11 10:45 ` Nikolay Borisov
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 10/30] x86/microcode: Remove pointless mutex Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 11/30] x86/microcode/intel: Simplify scan_microcode() Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 12/30] x86/microcode/intel: Simplify and rename generic_load_microcode() Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 13/30] x86/microcode/intel: Cleanup code further Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-11 11:01 ` Nikolay Borisov
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 14/30] x86/microcode/intel: Simplify early loading Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 15/30] x86/microcode/intel: Save the microcode only after a successful late-load Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 16/30] x86/microcode/intel: Switch to kvmalloc() Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 17/30] x86/microcode/intel: Unify microcode apply() functions Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 18/30] x86/microcode: Handle "nosmt" correctly Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 19/30] x86/microcode: Clarify the late load logic Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 20/30] x86/microcode: Sanitize __wait_for_cpus() Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 21/30] x86/microcode: Add per CPU result state Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:37 ` [patch 22/30] x86/microcode: Add per CPU control field Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 23/30] x86/microcode: Provide new control functions Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 20:25 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 24/30] x86/microcode: Replace the all in one rendevouz handler Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 25/30] x86/microcode: Rendezvous and load in NMI Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 26/30] x86/microcode: Protect against instrumentation Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 20:36 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-11 9:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 27/30] x86/apic: Provide apic_force_nmi_on_cpu() Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 28/30] x86/microcode: Handle "offline" CPUs correctly Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 20:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-10 20:50 ` Ashok Raj
2023-08-10 21:05 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-10 21:49 ` Ashok Raj
2023-08-10 22:29 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-10 23:02 ` Ashok Raj
2023-08-11 1:19 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-11 1:31 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-11 9:36 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-12 16:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 29/30] x86/microcode: Prepare for minimal revision check Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-10 20:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2023-08-11 9:38 ` Thomas Gleixner
2023-08-11 14:20 ` Arjan van de Ven
2023-08-10 18:38 ` [patch 30/30] x86/microcode/intel: Add a minimum required revision for late-loads Thomas Gleixner
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=20230810202519.GD212435@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=arjan@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--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