mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com>
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: Tue, 8 Nov 2016 17:22:09 +0100 (CET)	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1611081721330.3501@nanos> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <86609338-2b45-ed7e-fb07-99421e43a2f1@brocade.com>

On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
> On 11/08/2016 09:31 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Nov 2016, Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
> > > 	[    0.016335] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 0  pkg 0  cpu 0
> > > 	[    0.016398] smpboot: APIC(0) Converting physical 0 to logical
> > > package 0, cpu 0 (ffff88023fc0a040)
> > > 	[    0.016399] topology_update_package_map:  apicid 1  pkg 1  cpu 1
> > > 	[    0.016462] smpboot: APIC(1) Converting physical 1 to logical
> > > package 1, cpu 1 (ffff88023fd0a040)
> > > 
> > > So, I don't know where apic->cpu_present_to_apicid(cpu) is getting its
> > > apicid but it certainly doesn't seem to the match the apicid in the
> > > CPU's registers.  For whatever reason, my VMware system is reporting
> > > that the second CPU has a local APIC ID of 2:
> > 
> > The initial information comes from MP tables or ACPI.
> > 
> > > 	[    0.009115] identify_cpu: cpu_index 0  phys_proc_id is now 0,
> > > apicid 0, initial_apicid 0
> > > 	...
> > > 	[    0.237401] identify_cpu: cpu_index 1  phys_proc_id is now 2,
> > > apicid 2, initial_apicid 2
> > 
> > And the CPUID emulation tells something different. Sigh!
> > 
> > > I was thinking it might be better to call topology_update_package_map()
> > > at the bottom of identify_cpu() to setup the secondary CPU's.  The boot
> > > cpu could be setup during smp_init_package_map().
> > 
> > Perhaps, but that does not make the inconsistencies go away....
> 
> By the time I know it's not consistent, there isn't anything I can do
> about it.  I can't update the table to remove the bad information.
> 
> The other alternative, is to trust the ACPI and just update the
> cpu_data's apicid in identify_cpu() to the value from the table.
> The earlier kernels didn't seem to rely as much on this information.
> But it does appear to be "wrong" in the APIC table.  From acpidump:
> 
> [02Ch 0044   1]                Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Local APIC]
> [02Dh 0045   1]                       Length : 08
> [02Eh 0046   1]                 Processor ID : 00
> [02Fh 0047   1]                Local Apic ID : 00
> [030h 0048   4]        Flags (decoded below) : 00000001
>                            Processor Enabled : 1
> 
> [034h 0052   1]                Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Local APIC]
> [035h 0053   1]                       Length : 08
> [036h 0054   1]                 Processor ID : 01
> [037h 0055   1]                Local Apic ID : 01
> [038h 0056   4]        Flags (decoded below) : 00000001
>                            Processor Enabled : 1

Well, which one is wrong is hard to tell :)

I'll have a look how to sort that out.

Thanks,

	tglx

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-08 16:24 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
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 [this message]
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=alpine.DEB.2.20.1611081721330.3501@nanos \
    --to=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
    --cc=ciwillia@brocade.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=m.v.b@runbox.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®