On 17.07.2025 19:57, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> 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.
With the adjustments:
Reviewed-by: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>
Jan
