[ RFC, PATCH - 1/2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages

[ RFC, PATCH - 1/2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages

[dimm]

Hi,


this is in response to Mike's patch "Limit the number of microcode
messages".

What's about the following (yet preliminary and not thoroughly tested)
approach?

patch-1:

simplify 'struct ucode_cpu_info' and related operational logic.


patch-2: 

reduce a number of similar 'microcode version' messages by printing a
single message for all cpus with equal microcode version, like:

(1)
[   96.589437] microcode: original microcode versions...
[   96.589451] microcode: CPU0-1: sig=0x6f2, pf=0x20, revision=0x57

(2)
[   96.603176] microcode: microcode versions after update...
[   96.603193] microcode: CPU0-1: sig=0x6f2, pf=0x20, revision=0x57


The new approach is used in microcode_init() [ i.e. when loading a
module ] and microcode_write(), that's when we update all the cpus at
once.

reload_for_cpu() and update-all-cpus-upon-resuming() use the old
approach - a new microcode version is being reported upon applying it.

The latter might employ the similar 'report-for-all' approach as above
but that would somewhat complicate the logic. Anyways, there are plenty
of per-cpu messages upon system resuming so having some more
update-microcode related ones won't harm that muc, I guess :-)


(Not-yet-)signed-off-by: Dmitry Adaushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>

Patch-1:

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
index ef51b50..68fd54c 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
@@ -31,8 +31,6 @@ struct microcode_ops {
 };
 
 struct ucode_cpu_info {
-	struct cpu_signature	cpu_sig;
-	int			valid;
 	void			*mc;
 };
 extern struct ucode_cpu_info ucode_cpu_info[];
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
index 366baa1..c205d37 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
@@ -156,8 +156,6 @@ static int apply_microcode_amd(int cpu)
 	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d: updated (new patch_level=0x%x)\n",
 	       cpu, rev);
 
-	uci->cpu_sig.rev = rev;
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -249,14 +247,18 @@ static enum ucode_state
 generic_load_microcode(int cpu, const u8 *data, size_t size)
 {
 	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
+	struct cpu_signature cpu_sig;
 	const u8 *ucode_ptr = data;
-	void *new_mc = NULL;
-	void *mc;
-	int new_rev = uci->cpu_sig.rev;
-	unsigned int leftover;
+	void *new_mc = NULL, *mc;
+	unsigned int leftover, new_rev;
 	unsigned long offset;
 	enum ucode_state state = UCODE_OK;
 
+	if (collect_cpu_info_amd(cpu, &cpu_sig))
+		return UCODE_ERROR;
+
+	new_rev = cpu_sig.rev;
+
 	offset = install_equiv_cpu_table(ucode_ptr);
 	if (!offset) {
 		printk(KERN_ERR "microcode: failed to create "
@@ -293,7 +295,7 @@ generic_load_microcode(int cpu, const u8 *data,
size_t size)
 			uci->mc = new_mc;
 			pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d found a matching microcode "
 				 "update with version 0x%x (current=0x%x)\n",
-				 cpu, new_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev);
+				 cpu, new_rev, cpu_sig.rev);
 		} else {
 			vfree(new_mc);
 			state = UCODE_ERROR;
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
index 378e9a8..b7ead3a 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
@@ -138,20 +138,6 @@ static int collect_cpu_info_on_target(int cpu,
struct cpu_signature *cpu_sig)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static int collect_cpu_info(int cpu)
-{
-	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
-	int ret;
-
-	memset(uci, 0, sizeof(*uci));
-
-	ret = collect_cpu_info_on_target(cpu, &uci->cpu_sig);
-	if (!ret)
-		uci->valid = 1;
-
-	return ret;
-}
-
 struct apply_microcode_ctx {
 	int err;
 };
@@ -182,12 +168,8 @@ static int do_microcode_update(const void __user
*buf, size_t size)
 	int cpu;
 
 	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
-		struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
 		enum ucode_state ustate;
 
-		if (!uci->valid)
-			continue;
-
 		ustate = microcode_ops->request_microcode_user(cpu, buf, size);
 		if (ustate == UCODE_ERROR) {
 			error = -1;
@@ -269,23 +251,16 @@ static struct platform_device	*microcode_pdev;
 
 static int reload_for_cpu(int cpu)
 {
-	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
-	int err = 0;
+	enum ucode_state ustate;
 
 	mutex_lock(&microcode_mutex);
-	if (uci->valid) {
-		enum ucode_state ustate;
 
-		ustate = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(cpu,
&microcode_pdev->dev);
-		if (ustate == UCODE_OK)
-			apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
-		else
-			if (ustate == UCODE_ERROR)
-				err = -EINVAL;
-	}
+	ustate = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(cpu,
&microcode_pdev->dev);
+	if (ustate == UCODE_OK)
+		apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
 	mutex_unlock(&microcode_mutex);
 
-	return err;
+	return (ustate == UCODE_ERROR)? -EINVAL : 0;
 }
 
 static ssize_t reload_store(struct sys_device *dev,
@@ -317,17 +292,23 @@ static ssize_t reload_store(struct sys_device
*dev,
 static ssize_t version_show(struct sys_device *dev,
 			struct sysdev_attribute *attr, char *buf)
 {
-	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + dev->id;
+	struct cpu_signature cpu_sig;
 
-	return sprintf(buf, "0x%x\n", uci->cpu_sig.rev);
+	if (collect_cpu_info_on_target(dev->id, &cpu_sig))
+		return 0;
+
+	return sprintf(buf, "0x%x\n", cpu_sig.rev);
 }
 
 static ssize_t pf_show(struct sys_device *dev,
 			struct sysdev_attribute *attr, char *buf)
 {
-	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + dev->id;
+	struct cpu_signature cpu_sig;
+
+	if (collect_cpu_info_on_target(dev->id, &cpu_sig))
+		return 0;
 
-	return sprintf(buf, "0x%x\n", uci->cpu_sig.pf);
+	return sprintf(buf, "0x%x\n", cpu_sig.pf);
 }
 
 static SYSDEV_ATTR(reload, 0200, NULL, reload_store);
@@ -348,10 +329,7 @@ static struct attribute_group mc_attr_group = {
 
 static void microcode_fini_cpu(int cpu)
 {
-	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
-
 	microcode_ops->microcode_fini_cpu(cpu);
-	uci->valid = 0;
 }
 
 static enum ucode_state microcode_resume_cpu(int cpu)
@@ -369,10 +347,10 @@ static enum ucode_state microcode_resume_cpu(int
cpu)
 
 static enum ucode_state microcode_init_cpu(int cpu)
 {
+	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
 	enum ucode_state ustate;
 
-	if (collect_cpu_info(cpu))
-		return UCODE_ERROR;
+	memset(uci, 0, sizeof(*uci));
 
 	/* --dimm. Trigger a delayed update? */
 	if (system_state != SYSTEM_RUNNING)
@@ -388,19 +366,6 @@ static enum ucode_state microcode_init_cpu(int cpu)
 	return ustate;
 }
 
-static enum ucode_state microcode_update_cpu(int cpu)
-{
-	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
-	enum ucode_state ustate;
-
-	if (uci->valid)
-		ustate = microcode_resume_cpu(cpu);
-	else
-		ustate = microcode_init_cpu(cpu);
-
-	return ustate;
-}
-
 static int mc_sysdev_add(struct sys_device *sys_dev)
 {
 	int err, cpu = sys_dev->id;
@@ -450,7 +415,7 @@ static int mc_sysdev_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
 	 */
 	WARN_ON(cpu != 0);
 
-	if (uci->valid && uci->mc)
+	if (uci->mc)
 		microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
 
 	return 0;
@@ -472,7 +437,10 @@ mc_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned
long action, void *hcpu)
 	switch (action) {
 	case CPU_ONLINE:
 	case CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN:
-		microcode_update_cpu(cpu);
+		if (action == CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN)
+			microcode_resume_cpu(cpu);
+		else
+			microcode_init_cpu(cpu);
 	case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
 	case CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN:
 		pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d added\n", cpu);
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
index 0d334dd..6589765 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
@@ -339,8 +339,6 @@ static int apply_microcode(int cpu)
 		mc_intel->hdr.date >> 24,
 		(mc_intel->hdr.date >> 16) & 0xff);
 
-	uci->cpu_sig.rev = val[1];
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -348,11 +346,16 @@ static enum ucode_state generic_load_microcode(int
cpu, void *data, size_t size,
 				int (*get_ucode_data)(void *, const void *, size_t))
 {
 	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
+	struct cpu_signature cpu_sig;
 	u8 *ucode_ptr = data, *new_mc = NULL, *mc;
-	int new_rev = uci->cpu_sig.rev;
-	unsigned int leftover = size;
+	unsigned int leftover = size, new_rev;
 	enum ucode_state state = UCODE_OK;
 
+	if (collect_cpu_info(cpu, &cpu_sig))
+		return UCODE_ERROR;
+
+	new_rev = cpu_sig.rev;
+
 	while (leftover) {
 		struct microcode_header_intel mc_header;
 		unsigned int mc_size;
@@ -377,7 +380,7 @@ static enum ucode_state generic_load_microcode(int
cpu, void *data, size_t size,
 			break;
 		}
 
-		if (get_matching_microcode(&uci->cpu_sig, mc, new_rev)) {
+		if (get_matching_microcode(&cpu_sig, mc, new_rev)) {
 			if (new_mc)
 				vfree(new_mc);
 			new_rev = mc_header.rev;
@@ -407,7 +410,7 @@ static enum ucode_state generic_load_microcode(int
cpu, void *data, size_t size,
 
 	pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d found a matching microcode update with"
 		 " version 0x%x (current=0x%x)\n",
-			cpu, new_rev, uci->cpu_sig.rev);
+			cpu, new_rev, cpu_sig.rev);
 out:
 	return state;
 }

[ RFC, PATCH - 2/2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages

[dimm]

patch-2: see the summary in the 1st message.

summarize_cpu_info() perhaps require some more polishing.


(Not-yet-)signed-off-by: Dmitry Adaushko <dmitry.adamushko@gmail.com>



diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
index 68fd54c..38011a3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
@@ -26,8 +26,10 @@ struct microcode_ops {
 	 * are being called.
 	 * See also the "Synchronization" section in microcode_core.c.
 	 */
-	int (*apply_microcode) (int cpu);
+	int (*apply_microcode) (int cpu, int verbose);
 	int (*collect_cpu_info) (int cpu, struct cpu_signature *csig);
+
+	int (*version_snprintf) (char *buf, int len, struct cpu_signature *csig);
 };
 
 struct ucode_cpu_info {
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
index c205d37..0928fb3 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
@@ -81,10 +81,14 @@ static int collect_cpu_info_amd(int cpu, struct cpu_signature *csig)
 		return -1;
 	}
 	rdmsr(MSR_AMD64_PATCH_LEVEL, csig->rev, dummy);
-	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d: patch_level=0x%x\n", cpu, csig->rev);
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int version_snprintf(char *buf, int len, struct cpu_signature *csig)
+{
+	return snprintf(buf, len, "patch_level=0x%x\n", csig->rev);
+}
+
 static int get_matching_microcode(int cpu, void *mc, int rev)
 {
 	struct microcode_header_amd *mc_header = mc;
@@ -129,7 +133,7 @@ static int get_matching_microcode(int cpu, void *mc, int rev)
 	return 1;
 }
 
-static int apply_microcode_amd(int cpu)
+static int apply_microcode_amd(int cpu, int verbose)
 {
 	u32 rev, dummy;
 	int cpu_num = raw_smp_processor_id();
@@ -153,8 +157,8 @@ static int apply_microcode_amd(int cpu)
 		return -1;
 	}
 
-	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d: updated (new patch_level=0x%x)\n",
-	       cpu, rev);
+	if (verbose)
+		printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d: updated (new patch_level=0x%x)\n", cpu, rev);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -347,6 +351,7 @@ static struct microcode_ops microcode_amd_ops = {
 	.request_microcode_fw             = request_microcode_fw,
 	.collect_cpu_info                 = collect_cpu_info_amd,
 	.apply_microcode                  = apply_microcode_amd,
+	.version_snprintf		  = version_snprintf,
 	.microcode_fini_cpu               = microcode_fini_cpu_amd,
 };
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
index b7ead3a..fb18304 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_core.c
@@ -138,20 +138,33 @@ static int collect_cpu_info_on_target(int cpu, struct cpu_signature *cpu_sig)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+struct cpu_info_array_ctx {
+	struct cpu_signature	cpu_sig;
+	int			err;
+};
+
+static void collect_cpu_info_array(void *arg)
+{
+	int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+	struct cpu_info_array_ctx *ctx = arg;
+
+	ctx[cpu].err = microcode_ops->collect_cpu_info(cpu, &ctx[cpu].cpu_sig);
+}
+
 struct apply_microcode_ctx {
-	int err;
+	int err, verbose;
 };
 
 static void apply_microcode_local(void *arg)
 {
 	struct apply_microcode_ctx *ctx = arg;
 
-	ctx->err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(smp_processor_id());
+	ctx->err = microcode_ops->apply_microcode(smp_processor_id(), ctx->verbose);
 }
 
-static int apply_microcode_on_target(int cpu)
+static int apply_microcode_on_target(int cpu, int verbose)
 {
-	struct apply_microcode_ctx ctx = { .err = 0 };
+	struct apply_microcode_ctx ctx = { .err = 0, .verbose = verbose };
 	int ret;
 
 	ret = smp_call_function_single(cpu, apply_microcode_local, &ctx, 1);
@@ -161,6 +174,68 @@ static int apply_microcode_on_target(int cpu)
 	return ret;
 }
 
+static int summarize_cpu_range(cpumask_var_t range, struct cpu_signature *csig)
+{
+	char *cpu_str, *ver_str;
+	int ret = -1;
+
+	cpu_str = kmalloc(128, GFP_KERNEL);
+	ver_str = kmalloc(128, GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!cpu_str || !ver_str)
+		goto out;
+
+	cpulist_scnprintf(cpu_str, 128, range);
+	microcode_ops->version_snprintf(ver_str, 128, csig);
+
+	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%s: %s\n", cpu_str, ver_str);
+	ret = 0;
+out:
+	if (cpu_str)
+		kfree(cpu_str);
+	if (ver_str)
+		kfree(ver_str);
+
+	return ret;
+}
+
+static void summarize_cpu_info(void)
+{
+	struct cpu_info_array_ctx *ctx_array;
+	cpumask_var_t cpulist;
+	int base, cpu, ret;
+
+	if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&cpulist, GFP_KERNEL))
+		return;
+
+	ctx_array = kmalloc(nr_cpu_ids * sizeof(*ctx_array), GFP_KERNEL);
+	if (!ctx_array)
+		goto out;
+
+	ret = on_each_cpu(collect_cpu_info_array, ctx_array, 1);
+	if (ret)
+		goto out;
+
+	base = cpumask_first(cpu_online_mask);
+	cpu  = base;
+	cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpulist);
+
+	while ((cpu = cpumask_next(cpu, cpu_online_mask)) < nr_cpu_ids) {
+		if (memcmp(&ctx_array[base].cpu_sig, &ctx_array[cpu].cpu_sig,
+				sizeof(ctx_array[base].cpu_sig)) != 0) {
+			summarize_cpu_range(cpulist, &ctx_array[base].cpu_sig);
+			cpumask_clear(cpulist);
+			base = cpu;
+		}
+		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpulist);
+	}
+	summarize_cpu_range(cpulist, &ctx_array[base].cpu_sig);
+
+out:
+	free_cpumask_var(cpulist);
+	if (ctx_array)
+		kfree(ctx_array);
+}
+
 #ifdef CONFIG_MICROCODE_OLD_INTERFACE
 static int do_microcode_update(const void __user *buf, size_t size)
 {
@@ -175,7 +250,7 @@ static int do_microcode_update(const void __user *buf, size_t size)
 			error = -1;
 			break;
 		} else if (ustate == UCODE_OK)
-			apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
+			apply_microcode_on_target(cpu, 0);
 	}
 
 	return error;
@@ -203,6 +278,8 @@ static ssize_t microcode_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
 	if (do_microcode_update(buf, len) == 0)
 		ret = (ssize_t)len;
 
+	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: microcode versions after update...\n");
+	summarize_cpu_info();
 	mutex_unlock(&microcode_mutex);
 	put_online_cpus();
 
@@ -257,7 +334,7 @@ static int reload_for_cpu(int cpu)
 
 	ustate = microcode_ops->request_microcode_fw(cpu, &microcode_pdev->dev);
 	if (ustate == UCODE_OK)
-		apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
+		apply_microcode_on_target(cpu, 1);
 	mutex_unlock(&microcode_mutex);
 
 	return (ustate == UCODE_ERROR)? -EINVAL : 0;
@@ -340,12 +417,12 @@ static enum ucode_state microcode_resume_cpu(int cpu)
 		return UCODE_NFOUND;
 
 	pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d updated upon resume\n", cpu);
-	apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
+	apply_microcode_on_target(cpu, 1);
 
 	return UCODE_OK;
 }
 
-static enum ucode_state microcode_init_cpu(int cpu)
+static enum ucode_state microcode_init_cpu(int cpu, int verbose)
 {
 	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci = ucode_cpu_info + cpu;
 	enum ucode_state ustate;
@@ -360,7 +437,7 @@ static enum ucode_state microcode_init_cpu(int cpu)
 
 	if (ustate == UCODE_OK) {
 		pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d updated upon init\n", cpu);
-		apply_microcode_on_target(cpu);
+		apply_microcode_on_target(cpu, verbose);
 	}
 
 	return ustate;
@@ -379,7 +456,7 @@ static int mc_sysdev_add(struct sys_device *sys_dev)
 	if (err)
 		return err;
 
-	if (microcode_init_cpu(cpu) == UCODE_ERROR)
+	if (microcode_init_cpu(cpu, 0) == UCODE_ERROR)
 		err = -EINVAL;
 
 	return err;
@@ -416,7 +493,7 @@ static int mc_sysdev_resume(struct sys_device *dev)
 	WARN_ON(cpu != 0);
 
 	if (uci->mc)
-		microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu);
+		microcode_ops->apply_microcode(cpu, 1);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -440,7 +517,7 @@ mc_cpu_callback(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action, void *hcpu)
 		if (action == CPU_ONLINE_FROZEN)
 			microcode_resume_cpu(cpu);
 		else
-			microcode_init_cpu(cpu);
+			microcode_init_cpu(cpu, 1);
 	case CPU_DOWN_FAILED:
 	case CPU_DOWN_FAILED_FROZEN:
 		pr_debug("microcode: CPU%d added\n", cpu);
@@ -491,8 +568,14 @@ static int __init microcode_init(void)
 	get_online_cpus();
 	mutex_lock(&microcode_mutex);
 
+	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: original microcode versions...\n");
+	summarize_cpu_info();
+
 	error = sysdev_driver_register(&cpu_sysdev_class, &mc_sysdev_driver);
 
+	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: microcode versions after update...\n");
+	summarize_cpu_info();
+
 	mutex_unlock(&microcode_mutex);
 	put_online_cpus();
 
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
index 6589765..96c5cf5 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/microcode_intel.c
@@ -165,12 +165,14 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig)
 	/* get the current revision from MSR 0x8B */
 	rdmsr(MSR_IA32_UCODE_REV, val[0], csig->rev);
 
-	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n",
-			cpu_num, csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev);
-
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static int version_snprintf(char *buf, int len, struct cpu_signature *csig)
+{
+	return snprintf(buf, len, "sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n", csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev);
+}
+
 static inline int update_match_cpu(struct cpu_signature *csig, int sig, int pf)
 {
 	return (!sigmatch(sig, csig->sig, pf, csig->pf)) ? 0 : 1;
@@ -297,7 +299,7 @@ get_matching_microcode(struct cpu_signature *cpu_sig, void *mc, int rev)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int apply_microcode(int cpu)
+static int apply_microcode(int cpu, int verbose)
 {
 	struct microcode_intel *mc_intel;
 	struct ucode_cpu_info *uci;
@@ -332,12 +334,14 @@ static int apply_microcode(int cpu)
 			cpu_num, mc_intel->hdr.rev);
 		return -1;
 	}
-	printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d updated to revision "
+
+	if (verbose)
+		printk(KERN_INFO "microcode: CPU%d updated to revision "
 			 "0x%x, date = %04x-%02x-%02x \n",
-		cpu_num, val[1],
-		mc_intel->hdr.date & 0xffff,
-		mc_intel->hdr.date >> 24,
-		(mc_intel->hdr.date >> 16) & 0xff);
+			cpu_num, val[1],
+			mc_intel->hdr.date & 0xffff,
+			mc_intel->hdr.date >> 24,
+			(mc_intel->hdr.date >> 16) & 0xff);
 
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -468,6 +472,7 @@ static struct microcode_ops microcode_intel_ops = {
 	.request_microcode_fw             = request_microcode_fw,
 	.collect_cpu_info                 = collect_cpu_info,
 	.apply_microcode                  = apply_microcode,
+	.version_snprintf		  = version_snprintf,
 	.microcode_fini_cpu               = microcode_fini_cpu,
 };
 

Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages

[Andreas Herrmann]

On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:22:59PM +0100, dimm wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> 
> this is in response to Mike's patch "Limit the number of microcode
> messages".
> 
> What's about the following (yet preliminary and not thoroughly tested)
> approach?

Hmm, patch-1 doesn't apply:

 patching file arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
 patching file arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
 Hunk #1 succeeded at 152 (offset -4 lines).
 Hunk #2 succeeded at 240 (offset -7 lines).
 patch: **** malformed patch at line 99: size_t size)


> patch-1:
> 
> simplify 'struct ucode_cpu_info' and related operational logic.
> 
> 
> patch-2: 
> 
> reduce a number of similar 'microcode version' messages by printing a
> single message for all cpus with equal microcode version, like:

Would be useful on systems with many cores.

On AMD multi-socket systems often you have the same CPU revisions and
thus you'd like to have similar ucode on all cores. Hence there is a
high chance that your code would reduce the amount of microcode log
messages during boot.

I'd like to test it but would need patches that do apply ...


Thanks,
Andreas

Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages

[Mike Travis]

Andreas Herrmann wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:22:59PM +0100, dimm wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> this is in response to Mike's patch "Limit the number of microcode
>> messages".
>>
>> What's about the following (yet preliminary and not thoroughly tested)
>> approach?
> 
> Hmm, patch-1 doesn't apply:
> 
>  patching file arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
>  patching file arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
>  Hunk #1 succeeded at 152 (offset -4 lines).
>  Hunk #2 succeeded at 240 (offset -7 lines).
>  patch: **** malformed patch at line 99: size_t size)
> 
> 
>> patch-1:
>>
>> simplify 'struct ucode_cpu_info' and related operational logic.
>>
>>
>> patch-2: 
>>
>> reduce a number of similar 'microcode version' messages by printing a
>> single message for all cpus with equal microcode version, like:
> 
> Would be useful on systems with many cores.
> 
> On AMD multi-socket systems often you have the same CPU revisions and
> thus you'd like to have similar ucode on all cores. Hence there is a
> high chance that your code would reduce the amount of microcode log
> messages during boot.
> 
> I'd like to test it but would need patches that do apply ...
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Andreas

I will test it here as well.

Thanks,
Mike

Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages

[Dmitry Adamushko]

2009/11/2 Andreas Herrmann <herrmann.der.user@googlemail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:22:59PM +0100, dimm wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> this is in response to Mike's patch "Limit the number of microcode
>> messages".
>>
>> What's about the following (yet preliminary and not thoroughly tested)
>> approach?
>
> Hmm, patch-1 doesn't apply:
>
>  patching file arch/x86/include/asm/microcode.h
>  patching file arch/x86/kernel/microcode_amd.c
>  Hunk #1 succeeded at 152 (offset -4 lines).
>  Hunk #2 succeeded at 240 (offset -7 lines).
>  patch: **** malformed patch at line 99: size_t size)

Hmm, maybe my mailer has got it inlined wrongly... whatever, sorry for
that, I'll resend the patches later today.

> [ ... ]
>
> I'd like to test it but would need patches that do apply ...

Great, I'll send the patches later today.


>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>

-- 

-- Dmitry