mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
	<x86@kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"M. Vefa Bicakci" <m.v.b@runbox.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] perf/x86/intel/rapl: avoid access unallocate memory
Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2016 11:59:52 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <58e229e2-91f4-a97f-1b9f-089f48ef994a@brocade.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611071717000.3709@nanos>

On 11/07/2016 11:19 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Nov 2016, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
>
>> On 11/02/2016 08:25 AM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>>> I am not sure if this a race with the new hotplug code or something that was
>>> always there. Both (M. Vefa Bicakc and Charles) say that the box boots
>>> sometimes fine (without the patch).  smp_store_boot_cpu_info() should have
>>> run
>>> before the notofoert and thus should have set the info properly. However I
>>> got
>>> the following bootlog from Charles with this patch:
>>
>> I don't this this is a race.  Here is some debugging from the two CPU VM
>> (2 sockets, 1 core per socket).  In identify_cpu() we have:
>>
>>         /* The boot/hotplug time assigment got cleared, restore it */
>>         c->logical_proc_id = topology_phys_to_logical_pkg(c->phys_proc_id);
>>
>> The values just after this:
>>
>> 	[    0.228306] identify_cpu: c ffff88023fd0a040  logical_proc_id 65535
>> c->phys_proc_id 2
>>
>> So what's interesting here, is the phys_proc_id of 2 for CPU1:
>>
>>         int topology_phys_to_logical_pkg(unsigned int phys_pkg)
>>         {
>>                 if (phys_pkg >= max_physical_pkg_id)
>>                         return -1;
>>                 return physical_to_logical_pkg[phys_pkg];
>>         }
>>
>> And we happen to know the max_physical_pkg_id is 2 in this case.
>> So apparently, topology_phys_to_logical_pkg() returns -1 and it gets
>> assigned to the logical_proc_id.
>>
>> I don't know why the CPU's phys_proc_id is 2.
>
> max_physical_pkg_id gets initialized via:
>
>     cpus = boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores;
>     max_physical_pkg_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(MAX_LOCAL_APIC, ncpus);
>
> What's the value of boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores and MAX_LOCAL_APIC?

I have discovered that that is not the problem.  smp_init_package_map()
is calculating the physical core id using the following:

         for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
                 unsigned int apicid = apic->cpu_present_to_apicid(cpu);

		...
		if (!topology_update_package_map(apicid, cpu))
                         continue;

	...
	int topology_update_package_map(unsigned int apicid, unsigned int cpu)
	{
		unsigned int new, pkg = apicid >> boot_cpu_data.x86_coreid_bits;

But later when the secondary CPU's are identified they use a different
calculation using the local APIC ID from the CPU's registers:

	static void generic_identify(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
	...
         if (c->cpuid_level >= 0x00000001) {
                 c->initial_apicid = (cpuid_ebx(1) >> 24) & 0xFF;
	...
		c->phys_proc_id = c->initial_apicid;

So at the end of identify_cpu() when the boot/hotplug assignment is
put back:

         c->logical_proc_id = topology_phys_to_logical_pkg(c->phys_proc_id);

topology_phys_to_logical_pkg() is returning an invalid logical processor
since one isn't configured.

It's not clear to me what the right thing to do is or which is right.

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-07 17:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 43+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-02 12:25 Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-02 22:47 ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-03 17:47   ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-04 12:20     ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-04 18:03       ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-04 20:42         ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-04 20:57           ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-07 16:19   ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-07 16:59     ` Charles (Chas) Williams [this message]
2016-11-07 20:20       ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-08 14:20         ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-08 14:31           ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-08 14:57             ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-08 16:22               ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-09 15:35                 ` [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-09 15:37                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-09 16:03                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-09 16:34                     ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-09 18:37                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-09 18:15                   ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-09 20:27                   ` [tip:x86/urgent] x86/cpu: Deal with broken firmware (VMWare/XEN) tip-bot for Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-11  5:49                     ` Alok Kataria
2016-11-10  3:57                   ` [PATCH] x86/cpuid: Deal with broken firmware once more M. Vefa Bicakci
2016-11-10 10:50                     ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-10 11:14                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-12 22:05                       ` M. Vefa Bicakci
2016-11-10 11:13                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-10 11:39                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2016-11-10 14:02                       ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-11-10 15:05                         ` Charles (Chas) Williams
2016-11-10 15:31                           ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-11-10 15:54                             ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
2016-11-10 17:15                             ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-12 22:05                             ` M. Vefa Bicakci
2016-11-13 18:04                               ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-11-13 23:42                                 ` M. Vefa Bicakci
2016-11-15  1:21                                   ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-11-18 11:16                                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-18 14:22                                       ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-11-10 15:12                         ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-10 15:38                           ` Boris Ostrovsky
2016-11-10 17:13                             ` Thomas Gleixner
2016-11-10 18:01                               ` Boris Ostrovsky

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=58e229e2-91f4-a97f-1b9f-089f48ef994a@brocade.com \
    --to=ciwillia@brocade.com \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m.v.b@runbox.com \
    --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

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®