[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH] x86: amend 'n' debug-key output with SMI count
- To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>, "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:24:56 +0000
- Autocrypt: addr=andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx; keydata= xsFNBFLhNn8BEADVhE+Hb8i0GV6mihnnr/uiQQdPF8kUoFzCOPXkf7jQ5sLYeJa0cQi6Penp VtiFYznTairnVsN5J+ujSTIb+OlMSJUWV4opS7WVNnxHbFTPYZVQ3erv7NKc2iVizCRZ2Kxn srM1oPXWRic8BIAdYOKOloF2300SL/bIpeD+x7h3w9B/qez7nOin5NzkxgFoaUeIal12pXSR Q354FKFoy6Vh96gc4VRqte3jw8mPuJQpfws+Pb+swvSf/i1q1+1I4jsRQQh2m6OTADHIqg2E ofTYAEh7R5HfPx0EXoEDMdRjOeKn8+vvkAwhviWXTHlG3R1QkbE5M/oywnZ83udJmi+lxjJ5 YhQ5IzomvJ16H0Bq+TLyVLO/VRksp1VR9HxCzItLNCS8PdpYYz5TC204ViycobYU65WMpzWe LFAGn8jSS25XIpqv0Y9k87dLbctKKA14Ifw2kq5OIVu2FuX+3i446JOa2vpCI9GcjCzi3oHV e00bzYiHMIl0FICrNJU0Kjho8pdo0m2uxkn6SYEpogAy9pnatUlO+erL4LqFUO7GXSdBRbw5 gNt25XTLdSFuZtMxkY3tq8MFss5QnjhehCVPEpE6y9ZjI4XB8ad1G4oBHVGK5LMsvg22PfMJ ISWFSHoF/B5+lHkCKWkFxZ0gZn33ju5n6/FOdEx4B8cMJt+cWwARAQABzSlBbmRyZXcgQ29v cGVyIDxhbmRyZXcuY29vcGVyM0BjaXRyaXguY29tPsLBegQTAQgAJAIbAwULCQgHAwUVCgkI CwUWAgMBAAIeAQIXgAUCWKD95wIZAQAKCRBlw/kGpdefoHbdD/9AIoR3k6fKl+RFiFpyAhvO 59ttDFI7nIAnlYngev2XUR3acFElJATHSDO0ju+hqWqAb8kVijXLops0gOfqt3VPZq9cuHlh IMDquatGLzAadfFx2eQYIYT+FYuMoPZy/aTUazmJIDVxP7L383grjIkn+7tAv+qeDfE+txL4 SAm1UHNvmdfgL2/lcmL3xRh7sub3nJilM93RWX1Pe5LBSDXO45uzCGEdst6uSlzYR/MEr+5Z JQQ32JV64zwvf/aKaagSQSQMYNX9JFgfZ3TKWC1KJQbX5ssoX/5hNLqxMcZV3TN7kU8I3kjK mPec9+1nECOjjJSO/h4P0sBZyIUGfguwzhEeGf4sMCuSEM4xjCnwiBwftR17sr0spYcOpqET ZGcAmyYcNjy6CYadNCnfR40vhhWuCfNCBzWnUW0lFoo12wb0YnzoOLjvfD6OL3JjIUJNOmJy RCsJ5IA/Iz33RhSVRmROu+TztwuThClw63g7+hoyewv7BemKyuU6FTVhjjW+XUWmS/FzknSi dAG+insr0746cTPpSkGl3KAXeWDGJzve7/SBBfyznWCMGaf8E2P1oOdIZRxHgWj0zNr1+ooF /PzgLPiCI4OMUttTlEKChgbUTQ+5o0P080JojqfXwbPAyumbaYcQNiH1/xYbJdOFSiBv9rpt TQTBLzDKXok86M7BTQRS4TZ/ARAAkgqudHsp+hd82UVkvgnlqZjzz2vyrYfz7bkPtXaGb9H4 Rfo7mQsEQavEBdWWjbga6eMnDqtu+FC+qeTGYebToxEyp2lKDSoAsvt8w82tIlP/EbmRbDVn 7bhjBlfRcFjVYw8uVDPptT0TV47vpoCVkTwcyb6OltJrvg/QzV9f07DJswuda1JH3/qvYu0p vjPnYvCq4NsqY2XSdAJ02HrdYPFtNyPEntu1n1KK+gJrstjtw7KsZ4ygXYrsm/oCBiVW/OgU g/XIlGErkrxe4vQvJyVwg6YH653YTX5hLLUEL1NS4TCo47RP+wi6y+TnuAL36UtK/uFyEuPy wwrDVcC4cIFhYSfsO0BumEI65yu7a8aHbGfq2lW251UcoU48Z27ZUUZd2Dr6O/n8poQHbaTd 6bJJSjzGGHZVbRP9UQ3lkmkmc0+XCHmj5WhwNNYjgbbmML7y0fsJT5RgvefAIFfHBg7fTY/i kBEimoUsTEQz+N4hbKwo1hULfVxDJStE4sbPhjbsPCrlXf6W9CxSyQ0qmZ2bXsLQYRj2xqd1 bpA+1o1j2N4/au1R/uSiUFjewJdT/LX1EklKDcQwpk06Af/N7VZtSfEJeRV04unbsKVXWZAk uAJyDDKN99ziC0Wz5kcPyVD1HNf8bgaqGDzrv3TfYjwqayRFcMf7xJaL9xXedMcAEQEAAcLB XwQYAQgACQUCUuE2fwIbDAAKCRBlw/kGpdefoG4XEACD1Qf/er8EA7g23HMxYWd3FXHThrVQ HgiGdk5Yh632vjOm9L4sd/GCEACVQKjsu98e8o3ysitFlznEns5EAAXEbITrgKWXDDUWGYxd pnjj2u+GkVdsOAGk0kxczX6s+VRBhpbBI2PWnOsRJgU2n10PZ3mZD4Xu9kU2IXYmuW+e5KCA vTArRUdCrAtIa1k01sPipPPw6dfxx2e5asy21YOytzxuWFfJTGnVxZZSCyLUO83sh6OZhJkk b9rxL9wPmpN/t2IPaEKoAc0FTQZS36wAMOXkBh24PQ9gaLJvfPKpNzGD8XWR5HHF0NLIJhgg 4ZlEXQ2fVp3XrtocHqhu4UZR4koCijgB8sB7Tb0GCpwK+C4UePdFLfhKyRdSXuvY3AHJd4CP 4JzW0Bzq/WXY3XMOzUTYApGQpnUpdOmuQSfpV9MQO+/jo7r6yPbxT7CwRS5dcQPzUiuHLK9i nvjREdh84qycnx0/6dDroYhp0DFv4udxuAvt1h4wGwTPRQZerSm4xaYegEFusyhbZrI0U9tJ B8WrhBLXDiYlyJT6zOV2yZFuW47VrLsjYnHwn27hmxTC/7tvG3euCklmkn9Sl9IAKFu29RSo d5bD8kMSCYsTqtTfT6W4A3qHGvIDta3ptLYpIAOD2sY3GYq2nf3Bbzx81wZK14JdDDHUX2Rs 6+ahAA==
- Cc: Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>, Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Delivery-date: Wed, 24 Jan 2024 16:25:08 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 24/01/2024 3:27 pm, Jan Beulich wrote:
> ... if available only, of course.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c
> @@ -406,9 +406,15 @@ void __init early_cpu_init(bool verbose)
> paddr_bits -= (ebx >> 6) & 0x3f;
> }
>
> - if (!(c->x86_vendor & (X86_VENDOR_AMD | X86_VENDOR_HYGON)))
> + if (!(c->x86_vendor & (X86_VENDOR_AMD | X86_VENDOR_HYGON))) {
> + uint64_t smi_count;
> +
> park_offline_cpus = opt_mce;
>
> + if (!verbose && !rdmsr_safe(MSR_SMI_COUNT, smi_count))
> + setup_force_cpu_cap(X86_FEATURE_SMI_COUNT);
> + }
> +
I know you're re-using an existing condition, but I think it's more
likely that it's Intel-only than common to VIA and Shanghai.
Also, why is gated on verbose?
(I think I can see why this is rhetorical question, and I expect you can
guess what the feedback will be.)
> initialize_cpu_data(0);
> }
>
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/cpufeatures.h
> @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ XEN_CPUFEATURE(APERFMPERF, X86_SY
> XEN_CPUFEATURE(MFENCE_RDTSC, X86_SYNTH( 9)) /* MFENCE synchronizes
> RDTSC */
> XEN_CPUFEATURE(XEN_SMEP, X86_SYNTH(10)) /* SMEP gets used by Xen
> itself */
> XEN_CPUFEATURE(XEN_SMAP, X86_SYNTH(11)) /* SMAP gets used by Xen
> itself */
> -/* Bit 12 unused. */
> +XEN_CPUFEATURE(SMI_COUNT, X86_SYNTH(12)) /* MSR_SMI_COUNT exists */
> XEN_CPUFEATURE(IND_THUNK_LFENCE, X86_SYNTH(13)) /* Use IND_THUNK_LFENCE */
> XEN_CPUFEATURE(IND_THUNK_JMP, X86_SYNTH(14)) /* Use IND_THUNK_JMP */
> XEN_CPUFEATURE(SC_NO_BRANCH_HARDEN, X86_SYNTH(15)) /* (Disable) Conditional
> branch hardening */
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/msr-index.h
> @@ -28,6 +28,8 @@
> #define TEST_CTRL_SPLITLOCK_DETECT (_AC(1, ULL) << 29)
> #define TEST_CTRL_SPLITLOCK_DISABLE (_AC(1, ULL) << 31)
>
> +#define MSR_SMI_COUNT 0x00000034
> +
> #define MSR_INTEL_CORE_THREAD_COUNT 0x00000035
> #define MSR_CTC_THREAD_MASK 0x0000ffff
> #define MSR_CTC_CORE_MASK _AC(0xffff0000, U)
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/nmi.c
> @@ -589,9 +589,20 @@ static void cf_check do_nmi_stats(unsign
> unsigned int cpu;
> bool pend, mask;
>
> - printk("CPU\tNMI\n");
> + printk("CPU\tNMI%s\n", boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SMI_COUNT) ? "\tSMI" :
> "");
> for_each_online_cpu ( cpu )
> - printk("%3u\t%3u\n", cpu, per_cpu(nmi_count, cpu));
> + {
> + printk("%3u\t%3u", cpu, per_cpu(nmi_count, cpu));
> + if ( boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_SMI_COUNT) )
> + {
> + unsigned int smi_count, dummy;
> +
> + rdmsr(MSR_SMI_COUNT, smi_count, dummy);
> + printk("\t%3u\n", smi_count);
This reads MSR_SMI_COUNT repeatedly on the same CPU.
You'll need to IPI all CPUs to dump the count into a per-cpu variable.
~Andrew
|