[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [PATCH] x86: amend 'n' debug-key output with SMI count
On 24.01.2024 17:24, Andrew Cooper wrote: > 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. Then again when re-using the condition I questioned how likely it is that people actually use Xen on CPUs of these two vendors, when the respective code is only bit-rotting. > 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.) Hmm, no, I don't think I can guess that. The reason is simple: In case the MSR doesn't exist, I'd like to avoid the respective (debug) log message, emitted while recovering from the #GP, appearing twice. (Which imo eliminates the only guess I might otherwise have: Don't add complexity [the extra part of the condition] when it's not needed.) >> --- 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. Oh, how embarrassing. Jan
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |