On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 08:34:31AM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> (trim quote please...)
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 21:47 +, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > Do you want to prep a patch that I can stick in my 'microcode' branch?
> > .. That I will at some point try to upstream.
>
> You might want t
>>> On 06.12.12 at 09:34, Ian Campbell wrote:
> (trim quote please...)
> On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 21:47 +, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> Do you want to prep a patch that I can stick in my 'microcode' branch?
>> .. That I will at some point try to upstream.
>
> You might want to look back at th
(trim quote please...)
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 21:47 +, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> Do you want to prep a patch that I can stick in my 'microcode' branch?
> .. That I will at some point try to upstream.
You might want to look back at the archives when Jeremy first tried to
upstream this work,
On Wed, Dec 05, 2012 at 12:46:39PM +, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 13:44 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > >>> On 26.11.12 at 14:21, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > Debian has decided to take Jeremy's microcode patch [0] as an interim
> > > measure for their next release. (TL;DR -- Debian
On 12/05/2012 12:02 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 05.12.12 at 17:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 12/05/2012 07:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I've just tried this on a fam 15h and I get:
(XEN) microcode: collect_cpu_info: patch_id=0x6000626
(XEN) microcode: size 5260, block size 2
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 17:27 +, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 12:02 PM, Jan Beulich wrote:
> > But all of this shouldn't lead to equivalent ID mismatches, should
> > it? It ought to simply find nothing to update...
>
>
> The patch file (/lib/firmware/amd-ucode/microcode_amd_fam15h.bin
On 12/05/2012 12:05 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I looked at trying to apply the same logic to the Xen side of things but
it is different enough that I can't immediately see how.
microcode_fits() would seem to be the place to do it, but I'm not at all
sure what this equiv table stuff is all about.
On 12/05/2012 07:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
I've just tried this on a fam 15h and I get:
(XEN) microcode: collect_cpu_info: patch_id=0x6000626
(XEN) microcode: size 5260, block size 2592, offset 60
(XEN) microcode: CPU0 found a matching microcode update with version
0
>>> On 05.12.12 at 17:48, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 07:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> I've just tried this on a fam 15h and I get:
>>
>> (XEN) microcode: collect_cpu_info: patch_id=0x6000626
>> (XEN) microcode: size 5260, block size 2592, offset 60
>> (XEN) m
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 16:48 +, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 07:43 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > I've just tried this on a fam 15h and I get:
> >
> > (XEN) microcode: collect_cpu_info: patch_id=0x6000626
> > (XEN) microcode: size 5260, block size 2592, offset 60
> >
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 12:43 +, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> It seems like it is applying successfully on only the even numbered
> cpus. Is this because the odd and even ones share some execution units
> and therefore share microcode updates too? IOW update CPU0 also
> updates CPU1 under the hood.
FWIW, there's a bug in this original implementation. See Konrad's "misc"
tree - for the fix:
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/konrad/xen.git;a=commit;h=f6c958ff0d00ffbf1cdc8fcf2f2a82f06fbbb5f4
Here is the original thread where I submitted the fix:
http://markmail.org/message/i2dc4vbqrujkw
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 13:44 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 26.11.12 at 14:21, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Debian has decided to take Jeremy's microcode patch [0] as an interim
> > measure for their next release. (TL;DR -- Debian is shipping pvops Linux
> > 3.2 and Xen 4.1 in the next release. See
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 23:47 +, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>
> On 11/26/2012 09:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 11/26/2012 09:13 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 13:44 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
>
> >>>
> >>> The only other thing to check for is that you don't have an
On 11/26/2012 09:58 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 11/26/2012 09:13 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 13:44 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
The only other thing to check for is that you don't have any
artificial size restriction left in that code (I think patch files early
on were l
On 11/26/2012 09:13 AM, Ian Campbell wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 13:44 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
On 26.11.12 at 14:21, Ian Campbell wrote:
Debian has decided to take Jeremy's microcode patch [0] as an interim
measure for their next release. (TL;DR -- Debian is shipping pvops Linux
3.2 and X
>>> On 26.11.12 at 14:21, Ian Campbell wrote:
> Debian has decided to take Jeremy's microcode patch [0] as an interim
> measure for their next release. (TL;DR -- Debian is shipping pvops Linux
> 3.2 and Xen 4.1 in the next release. See http://bugs.debian.org/693053
> and https://lists.debian.org/
On Mon, 2012-11-26 at 13:44 +, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 26.11.12 at 14:21, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Debian has decided to take Jeremy's microcode patch [0] as an interim
> > measure for their next release. (TL;DR -- Debian is shipping pvops Linux
> > 3.2 and Xen 4.1 in the next release. See
Debian has decided to take Jeremy's microcode patch [0] as an interim
measure for their next release. (TL;DR -- Debian is shipping pvops Linux
3.2 and Xen 4.1 in the next release. See http://bugs.debian.org/693053
and https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg00141.html for some
more backgro
19 matches
Mail list logo
