public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@openvz.org>
Cc: ak@suse.de, akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	davej@codemonkey.org.uk, devel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rdmsr_on_cpu, wrmsr_on_cpu
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 14:14:05 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45AFF12D.2070901@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070118144527.GA6021@localhost.sw.ru>

Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> There was OpenVZ specific bug rendering some cpufreq drivers unusable
> on SMP. In short, when cpufreq code thinks it confined itself to
> needed cpu by means of set_cpus_allowed() to execute rdmsr, some
> "virtual cpu" feature can migrate process to anywhere. This triggers
> bugons and does wrong things in general.
> 
> This got fixed by introducing rdmsr_on_cpu and wrmsr_on_cpu executing
> rdmsr and wrmsr on given physical cpu by means of
> smp_call_function_single().
> 
> Dave Jones mentioned cpufreq might be not only user of rdmsr_on_cpu()
> and wrmsr_on_cpu(), so I'm going to put them into arch/i386/lib/
> (after patch gets some more testing othen than compile and UP run)

The CPUID and MSR drivers need something like this.

HOWEVER -- and this is where things get gnarly -- the CPUID and MSR 
drivers would really like to be able to execute CPUID, WRMSR and RDMSR 
with the entire GPR register set (except the stack pointer) pre-set and 
post-captured, since it's highly likely that there are going to be 
nonstandard MSRs and CPUID levels (already witness Intel breaking the 
CPUID architecture by introducing %ecx dependencies.)

So I would like to see:

/* It probably makes sense to use the same structure on x86 and
    x86-64 */
struct x86_gpr_regs {
	u64 rax, rcx, rdx, rbx;
	u64 rsp, rbp, rsi, rdi;
	u64 r8, r9, r10, r11;
	u64 r12, r13, r14, r15;
};

void rdmsr_on_cpu(unsigned cpu,
	const struct x86_gpr_regs *in, struct x86_gpr_regs *out);
void wrmsr_on_cpu(unsigned cpu,
	const struct x86_gpr_regs *in, struct x86_gpr_regs *out);
void cpuid_on_cpu(unsigned cpu,
	const struct x86_gpr_regs *in, struct x86_gpr_regs *out);

This requires assembly to do in the nonparavirtualized case, of course. 
  I'll try to get that written up in the next day or so.

	-hpa

  reply	other threads:[~2007-01-18 22:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-01-18 14:45 [PATCH] rdmsr_on_cpu, wrmsr_on_cpu Alexey Dobriyan
2007-01-18 22:14 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2007-01-18 23:21   ` Andi Kleen
2007-01-18 23:40     ` H. Peter Anvin
2007-01-19  0:40       ` Andi Kleen
2007-01-19  0:45         ` H. Peter Anvin

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=45AFF12D.2070901@zytor.com \
    --to=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@openvz.org \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=davej@codemonkey.org.uk \
    --cc=devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox