Re: [Xen-devel] [v6, 3/3] x86/smpboot: Fix __max_logical_packages estimate

[Simon Gaiser <simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Prarit Bhargava:
> On 02/07/2018 01:44 PM, Simon Gaiser wrote:
>> Prarit Bhargava:
>>> A system booted with a small number of cores enabled per package
>>> panics because the estimate of __max_logical_packages is too low.
>>> This occurs when the total number of active cores across all packages
>>> is less than the maximum core count for a single package.
>>>
>>> ie) On a 4 package system with 20 cores/package where only 4 cores
>>> are enabled on each package, the value of __max_logical_packages is
>>> calculated as DIV_ROUND_UP(16 / 20) = 1 and not 4.
>>>
>>> Calculate __max_logical_packages after the cpu enumeration has completed.
>>> Use the boot cpu's data to extrapolate the number of packages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: x86@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Piotr Luc <piotr.luc@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Kan Liang <kan.liang@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@xxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: He Chen <he.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Mathias Krause <minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Cc: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c | 55 
>>> +++++++++--------------------------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>>> index 838d36ff7ba6..2e3c5a394e79 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/smpboot.c
>>> @@ -308,12 +308,6 @@ int topology_update_package_map(unsigned int pkg, 
>>> unsigned int cpu)
>>>     if (new >= 0)
>>>             goto found;
>>>  
>>> -   if (logical_packages >= __max_logical_packages) {
>>> -           pr_warn("Package %u of CPU %u exceeds BIOS package data %u.\n",
>>> -                   logical_packages, cpu, __max_logical_packages);
>>> -           return -ENOSPC;
>>> -   }
>>> -
>>>     new = logical_packages++;
>>>     if (new != pkg)
>>>             pr_info("CPU %u Converting physical %u to logical package %u\n",
>>> @@ -323,44 +317,6 @@ int topology_update_package_map(unsigned int pkg, 
>>> unsigned int cpu)
>>>     return 0;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> -static void __init smp_init_package_map(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c, unsigned 
>>> int cpu)
>>> -{
>>> -   unsigned int ncpus;
>>> -
>>> -   /*
>>> -    * Today neither Intel nor AMD support heterogenous systems. That
>>> -    * might change in the future....
>>> -    *
>>> -    * While ideally we'd want '* smp_num_siblings' in the below @ncpus
>>> -    * computation, this won't actually work since some Intel BIOSes
>>> -    * report inconsistent HT data when they disable HT.
>>> -    *
>>> -    * In particular, they reduce the APIC-IDs to only include the cores,
>>> -    * but leave the CPUID topology to say there are (2) siblings.
>>> -    * This means we don't know how many threads there will be until
>>> -    * after the APIC enumeration.
>>> -    *
>>> -    * By not including this we'll sometimes over-estimate the number of
>>> -    * logical packages by the amount of !present siblings, but this is
>>> -    * still better than MAX_LOCAL_APIC.
>>> -    *
>>> -    * We use total_cpus not nr_cpu_ids because nr_cpu_ids can be limited
>>> -    * on the command line leading to a similar issue as the HT disable
>>> -    * problem because the hyperthreads are usually enumerated after the
>>> -    * primary cores.
>>> -    */
>>> -   ncpus = boot_cpu_data.x86_max_cores;
>>> -   if (!ncpus) {
>>> -           pr_warn("x86_max_cores == zero !?!?");
>>> -           ncpus = 1;
>>> -   }
>>> -
>>> -   __max_logical_packages = DIV_ROUND_UP(total_cpus, ncpus);
>>> -   pr_info("Max logical packages: %u\n", __max_logical_packages);
>>> -
>>> -   topology_update_package_map(c->phys_proc_id, cpu);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>>  void __init smp_store_boot_cpu_info(void)
>>>  {
>>>     int id = 0; /* CPU 0 */
>>> @@ -368,7 +324,7 @@ void __init smp_store_boot_cpu_info(void)
>>>  
>>>     *c = boot_cpu_data;
>>>     c->cpu_index = id;
>>> -   smp_init_package_map(c, id);
>>> +   topology_update_package_map(c->phys_proc_id, id);
>>>     cpu_data(id).set = 1;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> @@ -1371,7 +1327,16 @@ void __init native_smp_prepare_boot_cpu(void)
>>>  
>>>  void __init native_smp_cpus_done(unsigned int max_cpus)
>>>  {
>>> +   int ncpus;
>>> +
>>>     pr_debug("Boot done\n");
>>> +   /*
>>> +    * Today neither Intel nor AMD support heterogenous systems so
>>> +    * extrapolate the boot cpu's data to all packages.
>>> +    */
>>> +   ncpus = cpu_data(0).booted_cores * smp_num_siblings;
>>> +   __max_logical_packages = DIV_ROUND_UP(nr_cpu_ids, ncpus);
>>> +   pr_info("Max logical packages: %u\n", __max_logical_packages);
>>>  
>>>     if (x86_has_numa_in_package)
>>>             set_sched_topology(x86_numa_in_package_topology);
>>
>> This breaks booting as Xen PV domain for me. The problem seems to be
>> that native_smp_cpus_done() is never called on a PV domain. So
>> __max_logical_packages is uninitialized and this leads to a NULL
>> pointer dereference in coretemp.
>>
> 
> I'll see if I can figure out a way to test that.

Ok, thanks. If you need some logs, or if I should test something just
ask.

> Does 947134d9b00f
> ("x86/smpboot: Do not use smp_num_siblings in __max_logical_packages
> calculation") help?

No.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel