From: "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>
To: Chao Gao <chao.gao@intel.com>
Cc: Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@intel.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@intel.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
xen-devel@lists.xen.org, Jun Nakajima <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
tglx@linutronix.de, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [Patch v3 2/2] x86/microcode: Synchronize late microcode loading
Date: Wed, 16 May 2018 07:10:16 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5AFC2DB802000078001C33ED@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1525816893-36669-2-git-send-email-chao.gao@intel.com>
>>> On 09.05.18 at 00:01, <chao.gao@intel.com> wrote:
> @@ -30,15 +31,21 @@
> #include <xen/smp.h>
> #include <xen/softirq.h>
> #include <xen/spinlock.h>
> +#include <xen/stop_machine.h>
> #include <xen/tasklet.h>
> #include <xen/guest_access.h>
> #include <xen/earlycpio.h>
> +#include <xen/watchdog.h>
>
> +#include <asm/delay.h>
> #include <asm/msr.h>
> #include <asm/processor.h>
> #include <asm/setup.h>
> #include <asm/microcode.h>
>
> +/* By default, wait for 30000us */
> +#define MICROCODE_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT 30000
Please attach the unit (_US) to the name.
> @@ -281,24 +288,56 @@ static int microcode_update_cpu(const void *buf, size_t size)
> return err;
> }
>
> -static long do_microcode_update(void *_info)
> +/* Wait for all CPUs to rendezvous with a timeout (us) */
> +static int wait_for_cpus(atomic_t *cnt, unsigned int timeout)
> {
> - struct microcode_info *info = _info;
> - int error;
> + unsigned int cpus = num_online_cpus();
>
> - BUG_ON(info->cpu != smp_processor_id());
> + atomic_inc(cnt);
>
> - error = microcode_update_cpu(info->buffer, info->buffer_size);
> - if ( error )
> - info->error = error;
> + while ( atomic_read(cnt) != cpus )
> + {
> + if ( timeout <= 0 )
!timeout (or timeout == 0), now that it's of unsigned type.
> +static int do_microcode_update(void *_info)
> +{
> + struct microcode_info *info = _info;
> + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = wait_for_cpus(&info->cpu_in, MICROCODE_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT);
> + if ( ret )
> + return ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * Logical threads which set the first bit in cpu_sibling_mask can do
> + * the update. Other sibling threads just await the completion of
> + * microcode update.
> + */
> + if ( !cpumask_test_and_set_cpu(
> + cpumask_first(per_cpu(cpu_sibling_mask, cpu)), &info->cpus) )
> + ret = microcode_update_cpu(info->buffer, info->buffer_size);
> + /*
> + * Increase the wait timeout to a safe value here since we're serializing
> + * the microcode update and that could take a while on a large number of
> + * CPUs. And that is fine as the *actual* timeout will be determined by
> + * the last CPU finished updating and thus cut short
> + */
> + if ( wait_for_cpus(&info->cpu_out, MICROCODE_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT *
> + nr_phys_cpus) )
I remain unconvinced that this is a safe thing to do on a huge system with
guests running (even Dom0 alone would seem risky enough). I continue to
hope for comments from others, in particular Andrew, here. At the very
least I think you should taint the hypervisor when making it here.
> + /*
> + * Late loading dance. Why the heavy-handed stop_machine effort?
> + *
> + * -HT siblings must be idle and not execute other code while the other
> + * sibling is loading microcode in order to avoid any negative
> + * interactions cause by the loading.
> + *
> + * -In addition, microcode update on the cores must be serialized until
> + * this requirement can be relaxed in the feature. Right now, this is
s/feature/future/
Also please add blanks after the hyphens.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-05-16 13:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-05-08 22:01 [Patch v3 1/2] x86/smp: count the number of online physical processor in the system Chao Gao
2018-05-08 22:01 ` [Patch v3 2/2] x86/microcode: Synchronize late microcode loading Chao Gao
2018-05-16 13:10 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2018-05-16 13:25 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-05-16 13:46 ` Jan Beulich
2018-05-18 7:21 ` Chao Gao
2018-05-22 8:59 ` Chao Gao
2018-05-22 9:26 ` Jan Beulich
2018-05-22 20:14 ` Raj, Ashok
2018-11-13 9:08 ` Chao Gao
2018-11-13 9:09 ` Andrew Cooper
2018-05-16 12:54 ` [Patch v3 1/2] x86/smp: count the number of online physical processor in the system Jan Beulich
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=5AFC2DB802000078001C33ED@prv1-mh.provo.novell.com \
--to=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=ashok.raj@intel.com \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=chao.gao@intel.com \
--cc=jun.nakajima@intel.com \
--cc=kevin.tian@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xen.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.