[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] x86: amend 'n' debug-key output with SMI count


  • To: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 08:59:05 +0100
  • Autocrypt: addr=jbeulich@xxxxxxxx; keydata= xsDiBFk3nEQRBADAEaSw6zC/EJkiwGPXbWtPxl2xCdSoeepS07jW8UgcHNurfHvUzogEq5xk hu507c3BarVjyWCJOylMNR98Yd8VqD9UfmX0Hb8/BrA+Hl6/DB/eqGptrf4BSRwcZQM32aZK 7Pj2XbGWIUrZrd70x1eAP9QE3P79Y2oLrsCgbZJfEwCgvz9JjGmQqQkRiTVzlZVCJYcyGGsD /0tbFCzD2h20ahe8rC1gbb3K3qk+LpBtvjBu1RY9drYk0NymiGbJWZgab6t1jM7sk2vuf0Py O9Hf9XBmK0uE9IgMaiCpc32XV9oASz6UJebwkX+zF2jG5I1BfnO9g7KlotcA/v5ClMjgo6Gl MDY4HxoSRu3i1cqqSDtVlt+AOVBJBACrZcnHAUSuCXBPy0jOlBhxPqRWv6ND4c9PH1xjQ3NP nxJuMBS8rnNg22uyfAgmBKNLpLgAGVRMZGaGoJObGf72s6TeIqKJo/LtggAS9qAUiuKVnygo 3wjfkS9A3DRO+SpU7JqWdsveeIQyeyEJ/8PTowmSQLakF+3fote9ybzd880fSmFuIEJldWxp Y2ggPGpiZXVsaWNoQHN1c2UuY29tPsJgBBMRAgAgBQJZN5xEAhsDBgsJCAcDAgQVAggDBBYC AwECHgECF4AACgkQoDSui/t3IH4J+wCfQ5jHdEjCRHj23O/5ttg9r9OIruwAn3103WUITZee e7Sbg12UgcQ5lv7SzsFNBFk3nEQQCACCuTjCjFOUdi5Nm244F+78kLghRcin/awv+IrTcIWF hUpSs1Y91iQQ7KItirz5uwCPlwejSJDQJLIS+QtJHaXDXeV6NI0Uef1hP20+y8qydDiVkv6l IreXjTb7DvksRgJNvCkWtYnlS3mYvQ9NzS9PhyALWbXnH6sIJd2O9lKS1Mrfq+y0IXCP10eS FFGg+Av3IQeFatkJAyju0PPthyTqxSI4lZYuJVPknzgaeuJv/2NccrPvmeDg6Coe7ZIeQ8Yj t0ARxu2xytAkkLCel1Lz1WLmwLstV30g80nkgZf/wr+/BXJW/oIvRlonUkxv+IbBM3dX2OV8 AmRv1ySWPTP7AAMFB/9PQK/VtlNUJvg8GXj9ootzrteGfVZVVT4XBJkfwBcpC/XcPzldjv+3 HYudvpdNK3lLujXeA5fLOH+Z/G9WBc5pFVSMocI71I8bT8lIAzreg0WvkWg5V2WZsUMlnDL9 mpwIGFhlbM3gfDMs7MPMu8YQRFVdUvtSpaAs8OFfGQ0ia3LGZcjA6Ik2+xcqscEJzNH+qh8V m5jjp28yZgaqTaRbg3M/+MTbMpicpZuqF4rnB0AQD12/3BNWDR6bmh+EkYSMcEIpQmBM51qM EKYTQGybRCjpnKHGOxG0rfFY1085mBDZCH5Kx0cl0HVJuQKC+dV2ZY5AqjcKwAxpE75MLFkr wkkEGBECAAkFAlk3nEQCGwwACgkQoDSui/t3IH7nnwCfcJWUDUFKdCsBH/E5d+0ZnMQi+G0A nAuWpQkjM1ASeQwSHEeAWPgskBQL
  • Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 25 Jan 2024 07:59:17 +0000
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 24.01.2024 17:24, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 24/01/2024 3:27 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> ... if available only, of course.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
>> @@ -406,9 +406,15 @@ void __init early_cpu_init(bool verbose)
>>              paddr_bits -= (ebx >> 6) & 0x3f;
>>      }
>>  
>> -    if (!(c->x86_vendor & (X86_VENDOR_AMD | X86_VENDOR_HYGON)))
>> +    if (!(c->x86_vendor & (X86_VENDOR_AMD | X86_VENDOR_HYGON))) {
>> +            uint64_t smi_count;
>> +
>>              park_offline_cpus = opt_mce;
>>  
>> +            if (!verbose && !rdmsr_safe(MSR_SMI_COUNT, smi_count))
>> +                    setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SMI_COUNT);
>> +    }
>> +
> 
> I know you're re-using an existing condition, but I think it's more
> likely that it's Intel-only than common to VIA and Shanghai.

Then again when re-using the condition I questioned how likely it is
that people actually use Xen on CPUs of these two vendors, when the
respective code is only bit-rotting.

> Also, why is gated on verbose?
> 
> (I think I can see why this is rhetorical question, and I expect you can
> guess what the feedback will be.)

Hmm, no, I don't think I can guess that. The reason is simple: In
case the MSR doesn't exist, I'd like to avoid the respective (debug)
log message, emitted while recovering from the #GP, appearing twice.
(Which imo eliminates the only guess I might otherwise have: Don't
add complexity [the extra part of the condition] when it's not
needed.)

>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
>> @@ -589,9 +589,20 @@ static void cf_check do_nmi_stats(unsign
>>      unsigned int cpu;
>>      bool pend, mask;
>>  
>> -    printk("CPU\tNMI\n");
>> +    printk("CPU\tNMI%s\n", boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SMI_COUNT) ? "\tSMI" : 
>> "");
>>      for_each_online_cpu ( cpu )
>> -        printk("%3u\t%3u\n", cpu, per_cpu(nmi_count, cpu));
>> +    {
>> +        printk("%3u\t%3u", cpu, per_cpu(nmi_count, cpu));
>> +        if ( boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SMI_COUNT) )
>> +        {
>> +            unsigned int smi_count, dummy;
>> +
>> +            rdmsr(MSR_SMI_COUNT, smi_count, dummy);
>> +            printk("\t%3u\n", smi_count);
> 
> This reads MSR_SMI_COUNT repeatedly on the same CPU.
> 
> You'll need to IPI all CPUs to dump the count into a per-cpu variable.

Oh, how embarrassing.

Jan



 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.