On 17/07/2025 8:44 am, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 16.07.2025 19:31, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/acpi/cpu_idle.c
>> @@ -583,7 +583,6 @@ bool errata_c6_workaround(void)
>>
>> if ( unlikely(fix_needed == -1) )
>> {
>> -#define INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(m) { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, m, X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS }
>> /*
>> * Errata AAJ72: EOI Transaction May Not be Sent if Software Enters
>> * Core C6 During an Interrupt Service Routine"
>> @@ -594,12 +593,12 @@ bool errata_c6_workaround(void)
>> * there is an EOI pending.
>> */
>> static const struct x86_cpu_id eoi_errata[] = {
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x1a),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x1e),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x1f),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x25),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x2c),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x2f),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NEHALEM_EP, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NEHALEM, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NEHALEM_G, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_WESTMERE, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_WESTMERE_EP, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_WESTMERE_EX, NULL),
>> { }
>> };
> Along the lines of a comment further down, maybe make explicit that Nehalem-EX
> is intentionally omitted here (assuming that's not in fact an oversight)?
It looks to be an oversight. I've submitted a separate patch, so it can
be backported more easily.
In practice, it's covered by probe_c3_errata() which blanket disables C3
and C6 on Nehalem.
>
>> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c
>> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/intel.c
>> @@ -382,16 +382,12 @@ static void cf_check early_init_intel(struct
>> cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> */
>> static void probe_c3_errata(const struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
>> {
>> -#define INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(m) { X86_VENDOR_INTEL, 6, m, X86_FEATURE_ALWAYS }
>> static const struct x86_cpu_id models[] = {
>> - /* Nehalem */
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x1a),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x1e),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x1f),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x2e),
>> - /* Westmere (note Westmere-EX is not affected) */
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x2c),
>> - INTEL_FAM6_MODEL(0x25),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NEHALEM_EP, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NEHALEM, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_NEHALEM_G, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_WESTMERE, NULL),
>> + X86_MATCH_VFM(INTEL_WESTMERE_EP, NULL),
>> { }
>> };
> You lost NEHALEM_EX here.
Oops, too much copy/paste.
> For Westmere-EX I think the comment (part) would
> better be retained, to clarify that this isn't an oversight.
I can't find anything which looks related for Westmere EX. I'll retain
the comment.
~Andrew
