From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 35094C4167B for ; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 17:54:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236169AbiK2Ryb (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:54:31 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:51412 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233312AbiK2Ry3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 29 Nov 2022 12:54:29 -0500 Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 848D545A0E; Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:54:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1669744467; x=1701280467; h=message-id:date:mime-version:subject:to:cc:references: from:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=lKETQwm8/AYRbtudWQgvt+s2fE4xcmiG++pU4pE+d6w=; b=DN42QkDy+C6shEKlUZUqF0G4/oESigpuf9wtreqpgfaM0b64GANWx5Xv NbMUHimRlWrY5w+Pga1+K/9VoyzCry/IZ/JX5FSO0N6Jx3vopWXXd2JSU l5ESMl6uo324uoB/e16bOFhLC8T1TsBpI49kQ79UkuFVcGzvANDOKkVTG v6XZNgXa92PwJbsmb7msj+oM4p05V55LJvMM3UdUHS2qsDhPtugYJc8gV /N5swXV/N+Wrm5Tp6eGNUBQJKsdcT1ZoRxqa67ziRxfOI1tUbEmN2RLVi U3zkjsw6WKIQhKiq0d3uIRfQEhpjgl1uku0Pl2GKtEefqqr8HtHiRHa9r A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10546"; a="316335761" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,204,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="316335761" Received: from orsmga004.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.38]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Nov 2022 09:43:54 -0800 X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6500,9779,10546"; a="768512573" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.96,203,1665471600"; d="scan'208";a="768512573" Received: from wteng-mobl1.gar.corp.intel.com (HELO [10.209.83.194]) ([10.209.83.194]) by orsmga004-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 Nov 2022 09:43:53 -0800 Message-ID: <6b212148-4e3f-3ef6-7922-901175746d44@intel.com> Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:43:53 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.2 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating _PDC method when running as Xen dom0 Content-Language: en-US To: Roger Pau Monne , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, jgross@suse.com, Boris Ostrovsky , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , Alex Chiang , Venkatesh Pallipadi , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org References: <20221121102113.41893-1-roger.pau@citrix.com> <20221121102113.41893-2-roger.pau@citrix.com> From: Dave Hansen In-Reply-To: <20221121102113.41893-2-roger.pau@citrix.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 11/21/22 02:21, Roger Pau Monne wrote: > When running as a Xen dom0 the number of CPUs available to Linux can > be different from the number of CPUs present on the system, but in > order to properly fetch processor performance related data _PDC must > be executed on all the physical CPUs online on the system. How is the number of CPUs available to Linux different? Is this a result of the ACPI tables that dom0 sees being "wrong"? > The current checks in processor_physically_present() result in some > processor objects not getting their _PDC methods evaluated when Linux > is running as Xen dom0. Fix this by introducing a custom function to > use when running as Xen dom0 in order to check whether a processor > object matches a CPU that's online. What is the end user visible effect of this problem and of the solution?