[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] pvops microcode support for AMD FAM >= 15
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 17:27 +0000, Boris Ostrovsky wrote: > On 12/05/2012 12:02 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: > > But all of this shouldn't lead to equivalent ID mismatches, should > > it? It ought to simply find nothing to update... > > > The patch file (/lib/firmware/amd-ucode/microcode_amd_fam15h.bin) may > contain more than one patch. The driver goes over this file patch by > patch and tries to see whether to apply it. > > I think what happened in Ian's case was that the patch file contained > two patches --- one for this processor (ID 6012) and another for a > different processor (ID 6101). (Both are family 15h but different revs). > > The driver applied the first patch on core 0. Then, on core 1, the code > tried the first patch (at file offset 60) and noticed that it is already > applied. So it continued to the next patch (at offset 2660) which is not > meant for this processor, thus generating the "does not match" message. I added some debugging and can confirm this is what happens: (XEN) microcode: collect_cpu_info: CPU0 patch_id=0x6000626 (XEN) CPU0: current patch level 0x6000626 (XEN) microcode: size 5260, block size 2592, offset 60 (XEN) microcode: CPU0 found a matching microcode update with version 0x6000629 (current=0x6000626) (XEN) CPU0: apply_microcodeA: current patch level 0x6000626. Patch is 0x6000629 (XEN) CPU0: apply_microcodeB: new patch level 0x6000629. Patch is 0x6000629 (XEN) microcode: CPU0 updated from revision 0x6000626 to 0x6000629 (XEN) microcode: collect_cpu_info: CPU1 patch_id=0x6000629 (XEN) CPU1: current patch level 0x6000629 (XEN) microcode: size 5260, block size 2592, offset 60 (XEN) CPU1: microcode_fits: older patch 0x6000629 <= 0x6000629, returning (XEN) microcode: size 5260, block size 2592, offset 2660 (XEN) microcode: CPU1 patch does not match (patch is 6101, cpu base id is 6012) > So we have at least a problem in how the error is reported to the log -- > it is confusing. I'll try to make it more understandable. FWIW it also results in an error from the hypercall overall as well as the logging stuff. > And maybe core 1 shouldn't go into the second patch in the first place > because it already found a patch for this processor (but decided that it > is not needed based on patch ID). -- Ian Campbell * PerlGeek is really a space alien * Knghtktty believes PerlGeek _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |