On 11/10/2016 06:13 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Nov 2016, M. Vefa Bicakci wrote:
>
>> I have found that your patch unfortunately does not improve the situation
>> for me. Here is an excerpt obtained from the dmesg of a kernel compiled
>> with this patch *as well as* Sebastian's patch:
>> [ 0.002561] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
>> [ 0.002566] CPU: Processor Core ID: 0
>> [ 0.002572] [Firmware Bug]: CPU0: APIC id mismatch. Firmware: ffff CPUID:
>> 2
> So apic->cpu_present_to_apicid() gives us a completely bogus APIC id which
> translates to a bogus package id. And looking at the XEN code:
>
> xen_pv_apic.cpu_present_to_apicid = xen_cpu_present_to_apicid,
>
> and xen_cpu_present_to_apicid does:
>
> static int xen_cpu_present_to_apicid(int cpu)
> {
> if (cpu_present(cpu))
> return xen_get_apic_id(xen_apic_read(APIC_ID));
> else
> return BAD_APICID;
> }
>
> So independent of which present CPU we query we get just some random
> information, in the above case we get BAD_APICID from xen_apic_read() not
> from the else path as this CPU _IS_ present.
>
> What's so wrong with storing the fricking firmware supplied APICid as
> everybody else does and report it back when queried?
By firmware you mean ACPI? It is most likely not available to PV guests.
How about returning cpu_data(cpu).initial_apicid?
And what was the original problem?
-boris
>
> This damned attitude of we just hack the code into submission and let
> everybody else deal with the outcoming is utterly annoying.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
