From: "Chang S. Bae" <chang.seok.bae@intel.com>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>,
Chintan M Patel <chintan.m.patel@intel.com>,
Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] x86/fpu/xstate: Add more diagnostic information on inconsistent xstate sizes
Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2023 21:38:50 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <388b09ea-7eb4-2878-5292-97475fde8a5a@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50e67263-33ba-9921-1bc2-a37b99bc2459@intel.com>
On 4/11/2023 6:21 PM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>
> First of all, max_features is shown already.
Yes.
> Kernel_size from CPUID.0xd.0x1:EBX takes XCR0 | IA32_XSS as input.
> Platform may take wrong XCR0 or IA32_XSS and get wrong kernel_size. The > purpose of this patch is to provide more debug info to help debug
> platform/kernel issue. So instead of a whole max_features, xgetbv() to
> get XCR0 and xfeatures_mask_supervisor() to get IA32_XSS provides more
> debug info in case platform may have issue in XCR0 or IA32_XSS.
>
> In other words, splitting max_features into XCR0 and IA32_XSS and
> showing them individually provide more useful debug info than one single
> max_features value. >
> Does it make sense?
Hmm, I don't get it. I don't think whether the microcode takes those
register values wrong or miscalculates the size does matter here.
print_xstate_offset_size() or something can decode the mask and readily
shows off how it was calculated here. Then, probably that's it.
>> I still expect some acknowledgment of what is coded here for the
>> kernel calculation details.
>
> The kernel calculation is shown in
> + print_xstate_offset_size();
> + pr_info("x86/fpu: total size: %u bytes\n", size);
>
> Isn't that detailed enough to show offset and size of each xstate and
> sum of sizes?
>
> After that,
> + pr_info("x86/fpu: kernel_size from CPUID.0xd.0x%x:EBX: %u bytes\n",
> + compacted ? 1 : 0, kernel_size);
> shows how kernel_size is calculated from CPUID?
>
> Using the above debug info, a real platform CPUID issue is shown clearly.
>
> What other details are needed?
I recall it was also asked to show which features are off or mismatched
as compared to the CPU calculation. I'm not so sure about it.
Thanks,
Chang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-12 4:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-05 18:39 Fenghua Yu
2023-04-07 18:22 ` Chang S. Bae
2023-04-10 20:43 ` Fenghua Yu
2023-04-11 16:29 ` Chang S. Bae
2023-04-12 1:21 ` Fenghua Yu
2023-04-12 4:38 ` Chang S. Bae [this message]
2023-04-12 14:35 ` Dave Hansen
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=388b09ea-7eb4-2878-5292-97475fde8a5a@intel.com \
--to=chang.seok.bae@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=chintan.m.patel@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=thiago.macieira@intel.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®