From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758363AbZKESkt (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:40:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758310AbZKESkt (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:40:49 -0500 Received: from mail-ew0-f207.google.com ([209.85.219.207]:63373 "EHLO mail-ew0-f207.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758276AbZKESks convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Nov 2009 13:40:48 -0500 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=RSkZYaG9vkgmgqPy8oWVUJBxfKyUXXHkZO/u26udXNOxR+l6TOrcvk1WqGKWSNaGr/ T1QTDi6BVEnGS+Ys8v0+j1mS/O3qO93z1UIIepPSQGRhUlHDhjo9paN4ck9PZv1Pftcr //FaoXY0f2bMmyH7r63/U1sovfuarBEvgMdaw= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20091105153742.GA18592@alberich.amd.com> References: <1257192496.5941.8.camel@dimm> <20091105153742.GA18592@alberich.amd.com> Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 19:40:53 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ RFC, PATCH - 1/2, v2 ] x86-microcode: refactor microcode output messages From: Dmitry Adamushko To: Andreas Herrmann Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Mike Travis , Tigran Aivazian , Thomas Gleixner , Borislav Petkov , Andreas Mohr , Jack Steiner Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 2009/11/5 Andreas Herrmann : > The patches don't properly work here. > > (1) For instance I got following log entries when doing >    suspend/resume, doing CPU offline/online test and reloading the >    module: To avoid possible misunderstandings, I'd like to clarify the output below. > >  microcode: original microcode versions... >  microcode: CPU0-3: patch_level=0x1000065 So this is the 1st time you have loaded a module. >  platform microcode: firmware: requesting amd-ucode/microcode_amd.bin >  ... >  microcode: CPU0-1,3: patch_level=0x1000083 before or after loading a module? CPU2 is down, isn't it? > >  microcode: CPU2-3: patch_level=0x1000065 same question as above. Here, either CPUs 0 and 1 are down or have a different version. Both above messages don't make sense taken together (CPU3 belongs to both sets) unless summarize_cpu_info() is utterly broken. > >  Microcode Update Driver: v2.00 , Peter Oruba > > The patch levels are: > >  # for i in `seq 0 3`; do lsmsr -c $i PATCH_LEVEL; done >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000083 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000083 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000065 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000065 this is after your test has been stopped and all the CPUs are up, right? > > (2) During suspend/resume the ucode is not updated: > >  hadburg linux # for i in `seq 0 3`; do lsmsr -c $i PATCH_LEVEL; done >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000083 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000083 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000083 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000083 >  hadburg linux # pm-suspend >  hadburg linux # for i in `seq 0 3`; do lsmsr -c $i PATCH_LEVEL; done >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000065 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000065 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000065 >  PATCH_LEVEL          = 0x0000000001000065 > > > That used to work w/o your patches. Didn't have time to look why this > is now failing. You've changed mc_cpu_callback() -- most likely that > is causing this regression. Hmm, cpu-event-callbacks seem to be working on my (Intel) setup. I have enabled pr_debug messages and also did a little trick to allow ucode of the same version to be loaded (my cpu is of the recent ucode by itself) and I can see cpu-callback events for both resuming and cpu-up cases. (firstly, upgraded with microcode_ctl as I only have a .dat file) suspend-resume ... [ 584.506371] microcode: CPU1 removed [ 584.516018] microcode: CPU0 updated to revision 0x57, date = 2007-03-15 [ 584.597326] microcode: CPU1 updated upon resume [ 584.597562] microcode: CPU1 updated to revision 0x57, date = 2007-03-15 [ 584.597565] microcode: CPU1 added ... and now cpu1 : down -> up [ 1616.932249] microcode: CPU1 removed [ 1633.942502] platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode/06-0f-02 [ 1633.954638] microcode: data file intel-ucode/06-0f-02 load failed [ 1633.954642] microcode: CPU1 added as I understand, you don't see " platform microcode: firmware: requesting intel-ucode" messages upon 'upping' a cpu, do you? sure, my test is somewhat limited... anyway, first of all I'd like to get a clear understanding of your logs. Thanks for yout test btw. :-)) > > > Regards, > Andreas > -- Dmitry