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
next prev parent 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