From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
To: Xen-devel <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
"Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com>,
"Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: [PATCH 3/3] x86/ucode: Remove the collect_cpu_info() call from parse_blob()
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2024 12:21:17 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241107122117.4073266-4-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241107122117.4073266-1-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
With the tangle of logic starting to come under control, it is now plain to
see that parse_blob()'s side effect of re-gathering the signature/revision is
pointless.
The cpu_request_microcode() hooks need the signature only. The BSP gathers
this in early_microcode_init(), the APs and S3 in microcode_update_cpu(). For
good measure, the apply_microcode() hooks also keep the revision correct as
load attempts are made.
This finally gets us down to a single call per CPU on boot / S3 resume, and no
calls during late-load hypercalls.
No functional change.
Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
---
CC: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com>
CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Slightly RFC.
Just before posting, I've realised that cpu_request_microcode() does actually
use the current CPU revision, and it's buggy, and it's the cause of `xen-ucode
--force` not working as expected.
I'm tempted to do another series cleaning that up in isolation, such that this
patch becomes true in this form.
---
xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/core.c | 2 --
1 file changed, 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/core.c b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/core.c
index fd4b08b45388..5897ec54032a 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/core.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/microcode/core.c
@@ -189,8 +189,6 @@ static struct patch_with_flags nmi_patch =
*/
static struct microcode_patch *parse_blob(const char *buf, size_t len)
{
- alternative_vcall(ucode_ops.collect_cpu_info);
-
return alternative_call(ucode_ops.cpu_request_microcode, buf, len, true);
}
--
2.39.5
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-11-07 12:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-07 12:21 [PATCH 0/3] x86/ucode: Simplify/fix loading paths further Andrew Cooper
2024-11-07 12:21 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/ucode: Don't use microcode_update_cpu() in early_microcode_load() Andrew Cooper
2024-11-12 10:34 ` Jan Beulich
2024-11-07 12:21 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86/ucode: Fold microcode_update_cpu() and fix error handling Andrew Cooper
2024-11-12 10:45 ` Jan Beulich
2024-11-12 12:55 ` Andrew Cooper
2024-11-12 14:24 ` Jan Beulich
2024-11-07 12:21 ` Andrew Cooper [this message]
2024-11-07 21:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86/ucode: Remove the collect_cpu_info() call from parse_blob() Andrew Cooper
2024-11-12 10:36 ` Andrew Cooper
2024-11-12 10:49 ` Jan Beulich
2024-11-12 10:57 ` Andrew Cooper
2024-11-12 11:00 ` Jan Beulich
2024-11-08 12:12 ` [PATCH 4/3] x86/ucode: Fix cache handling in microcode_update_helper() Andrew Cooper
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=20241107122117.4073266-4-andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--to=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=JBeulich@suse.com \
--cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.