Impact: don't play with current's cpumask
Straightforward indirection through work_on_cpu(). One change is
that the error code from microcode_update_cpu() is now actually
plumbed back to microcode_init_cpu(), so now we printk if it fails
on cpu hotplug.
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Oruba <peter.oruba@amd.com>
LKML-Reference: <200903111632.37279.rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Impact: fix deadlock
This is in response to the following bug report:
Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100
Subject : resume (S2R) broken by Intel microcode module, on A110L
Submitter : Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Date : 2008-11-25 08:48 (19 days old)
Handled-By : Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
[ The deadlock scenario has been discovered by Andreas Mohr ]
I think I might have a logical explanation why the system:
(http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12100)
might hang upon resuming, OTOH it should have likely hanged each and every time.
(1) possible deadlock in microcode_resume_cpu() if either 'if' section is
taken;
(2) now, I don't see it in spec. and can't experimentally verify it (newer
ucodes don't seem to be available for my Core2duo)... but logically-wise, I'd
think that when read upon resuming, the 'microcode revision' (MSR 0x8B) should
be back to its original one (we need to reload ucode anyway so it doesn't seem
logical if a cpu doesn't drop the version)... if so, the comparison with
memcmp() for the full 'struct cpu_signature' is wrong... and that's how one of
the aforementioned 'if' sections might have been triggered - leading to a
deadlock.
Obviously, in my tests I simulated loading/resuming with the ucode of the same
version (just to see that the file is loaded/re-loaded upon resuming) so this
issue has never popped up.
I'd appreciate if someone with an appropriate system might give a try to the
2nd patch (titled "fix a comparison && deadlock...").
In any case, the deadlock situation is a must-have fix.
Reported-by: Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Tested-by: Andreas Mohr <andi@lisas.de>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Impact: make global variables and a function static
Fix following sparse warnings:
arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c:102:22: warning: symbol
'microcode_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c:206:24: warning: symbol
'microcode_pdev' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c:322:6: warning: symbol
'microcode_update_cpu' was not declared. Should it be static?
arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c:468:22: warning: symbol
'microcode_intel_ops' was not declared. Should it be static?
Signed-off-by: Hannes Eder <hannes@hanneseder.net>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Combine both generic and arch-specific parts of microcode into a
single module (arch-specific parts are config-dependent).
Also while we are at it, move arch-specific parts from microcode.h
into their respective arch-specific .c files.
Signed-off-by: Dmitry Adamushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>
Cc: "Peter Oruba" <peter.oruba@amd.com>
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
2008-09-23 12:21:42 +02:00
Renamed from arch/x86/kernel/microcode.c (Browse further)
