From: "Charles (Chas) Williams" <ciwillia@brocade.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Cc: <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: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 08:20:37 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e89d4987-5aab-fd6d-2b11-7a4d0eb7f57f@brocade.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161103174753.o5ynquul2rjuiq77@linutronix.de>
On 11/03/2016 01:47 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2016-11-02 18:47:49 [-0400], Charles (Chas) Williams wrote:
>> 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.
>
> This is the physical ID. You have two logical IDs (on your two sockets
> machine). What is max_physical_pkg_id? In order to get that -1 you would
> have to max_physical_pkg_id of 1 but code does
> max_physical_pkg_id = DIV_ROUND_UP(MAX_LOCAL_APIC, ncpus);
>
> and I would be a little surprised if this is 1.
>
> Sebastian
The initial CPU boots and is identified:
[ 0.009018] identify_boot_cpu
[ 0.009174] generic_identify: phys_proc_id is now 0
...
[ 0.009427] identify_cpu: before c ffffffff81ae2680 logical_proc_id 0 c->phys_proc_id 0
[ 0.009506] identify_cpu: after c ffffffff81ae2680 logical_proc_id 65535 c->phys_proc_id 0
So, this is fine because the APIC hasn't been scanned yet. APIC
now gets scanned:
[ 0.015789] smpboot: APIC(0) Converting physical 0 to logical package 0, cpu 0 (ffff88023fc0a040)
[ 0.015794] smpboot: APIC(1) Converting physical 1 to logical package 1, cpu 1 (ffff88023fd0a040)
[ 0.015797] smpboot: Max logical packages: 2
So, at this point, I think everything is correct. But now the secondary
CPU's "boot":
[ 0.236569] identify_secondary_cpu
[ 0.236620] generic_identify: phys_proc_id is now 2
[ 0.236745] identify_cpu: before c ffff88023fd0a040 logical_proc_id 65535 c->phys_proc_id 2
[ 0.236747] identify_cpu: after c ffff88023fd0a040 logical_proc_id 65535 c->phys_proc_id 2
So, APIC discovered I have a cpu 0 and 1 but generic_identify() is called
my second CPU, 2. This is >= max_physical_pkg_id, so it is going to get
set to -1.
The comment at the end of identfy_cpu() says:
/* The boot/hotplug time assigment got cleared, restore it */
So, logical_proc_id being wrong here before restoration doesn't bother
me since I assume something in booting the secondary CPU's clears any
existing cpu data.
I know detect_extended_topology() is likely being called for both CPU's
and getting the right values (checking this now). I don't know why
generic_identify() is resetting this value.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-04 12:20 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 [this message]
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
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=e89d4987-5aab-fd6d-2b11-7a4d0eb7f57f@brocade.com \
--to=ciwillia@brocade.com \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--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®