[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 7/7] x86/ucode/intel: Fold structures together

  • To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
  • From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:50:47 +0000
  • Authentication-results: esa1.hc3370-68.iphmx.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.i=none; spf=None smtp.pra=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=Pass smtp.mailfrom=Andrew.Cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; spf=None smtp.helo=postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Cc: Xen-devel <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:51:03 +0000
  • Ironport-sdr: tVAD0Yw5RYnyaChXDQHBxP+ypJoSVEoxHhWZVuIVq1AYl4r/jT81VyNG2po2aHgLqUUrUf6+DG z3VL0EeHYPXMc07HjN78miRyulcKX1TjPi1B+6NQA35wnlzcwK/R5lJ0zmIGLheK4EMNcQSaVh hn3+pMUnnVGKe+UKVSp3/ce79fjEPvlQLtiwhWQAYiN49/S1yGEKqlLyzDOD3FAKmFYSllgFPc dtVCcuNpY/5RrdCoefqM+pasqDeLPVZQ74Gl/UX95qBsoI8wYyCNfLEY0uHkXJiFGfrIA/S4ji 3HU=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>

On 26/03/2020 12:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 25.03.2020 15:32, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 25/03/2020 14:16, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> On 23.03.2020 11:17, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>>> Currently, we allocate an 8 byte struct microcode_patch to point at a
>>>> separately allocated struct microcode_intel.  This is wasteful.
>>> As indicated elsewhere I'm very much in favor of this, but I think it
>>> wants doing in one of the earlier series, and then for AMD at the same
>>> time.
>> I've got some ideas for an AMD series given the replies I got, and will
>> be able to do an equivalent microcode_amd => microcode_patch folding on
>> that side.  There is also further work to do, including unbreaking the
>> OSVW logic (which has been totally clobbered by the start/end_update
>> debacle).
>> However, given that it taken this whole series to make the transition
>> look safe on the Intel side, I really don't see a way of doing this
>> "earlier".
>> In particular, no amount of ifdefary suggested below can AFAICT make it
>> safe to do this transform without having microcode_patch opaque to being
>> with.
>> Yes - there is a bit of churn, but I can't see a safe alternative.
> Something like the one below (compile tested only, and not really
> cleaned up in any way)?
> Jan

Thanks.  I'll experiment with this approach.

On a perhaps tangential note, what (if anything) are you plans regarding
backport here?

These defines are ok for a transitional period across a series (and
probably means I'll need to get the AMD side ready to be committed at
the same time), but I don't think we'd want them in the code for the

I personally wasn't overly concerned about backports, but if you are, we
should probably take this into consideration for the fixes.




Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.