On 9/23/2013 12:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 23/09/13 17:48, Suravee Suthikulpanit wrote:
>> On 9/23/2013 1:52 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>> On 20.09.13 at 23:38, Suravee Suthikulanit<suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 9/17/2013 10:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>>>>> This (unconditional) assignment is what the earlier logic attempted
>>>>>>>>> to avoid: We must not blindly set this (and in particular not blindly
>>>>>>>>> overwrite a previously set valid value), and in order to do so we
>>>>>>>>> need to know whether to trust devid or handle. I'm therefore going
>>>>>>>>> to apply only the first hunk - being a clear and obvious bug fix - for
>>>>>>>>> the time being.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But since we only allow one HPET in the system, and if users want to
>>>>>>> override the one that is in the IVRS (the buggy one)
>>>>>>> we should allow this, right?  Otherwise, if the special->handle doesn't
>>>>>>> match, it would end up causing this logic to complain
>>>>>>> about multiple HPETs.
>>>>> We must not allow multiple HPET entries in the ACPI tables to
>>>>> confuse us and store a bad IOMMU pointer.
>>>> I understand this part and agree.  Currently, the patch does not allow
>>>> multiple HPET in the system.
>>>> If user specifies the ivrs_hpet, that will be the one that get used, and
>>>> ignore the one that
>>>> is in the IVRS.  Although, it will be pointing to the IOMMU which lists
>>>> HPET in the IVRS.
>>>>
>>>> However, if IVRS is listing multiple HPETs in different IOMMUs, then it
>>>> will just default to the first IOMMU.
>>>> I don't see this case happening though since HPET is in the Southbridge
>>>> which only has one in the system.
>>>>
>>>> Am I missing any thing?
>>> Yes - there's no guarantee that (especially in a multi-node
>>> system) there's just one HPET. Nor do the ACPI tables have
>>> any indication there this would always be the case. Even if
>>> _all_ current systems only have a single HPET (which I don't
>>> think you can guarantee), we shouldn't code in a latent bug
>>> like this.
>>>
>>> Jan
>> I am a bit confused on what you want to do.  I believe all the 
>> systems at this point
>> should have only one HPET.  That's why the code only has one data 
>> structure for
>> initialize one HPET.  Are you expecting that certain systems could 
>> have more than
>> one HPETs?
>
> Amongst the test servers we have, I have plenty of examples of AMD 
> hardware with anything up to 8 HPETs in the system.  (See for 
> reference my HPET stack overflow thread)
>
> ~Andrew
Andrew,

 From the hpet-overflow-full-stackdump.tar.gz here 
(http://lists.xen.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2013-08/msg01667.html),
I inspect the files, and foundout that this is an Intel system.  Are you 
sure that you are seeing more than 1 HPET
on an AMD system?  As far as I know, I don't this that is how the 
platforms are designed.

Would you mind sending the output from "acpidump" for the "HPET" table 
from the system you have? Also, would you provide
the detail of the system?

Thank you,

Suravee