>>> On 03.12.18 at 17:18, <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/cpu/amd.c
> @@ -419,6 +419,97 @@ static void __init noinline amd_probe_legacy_ssbd(void)
> }
>
> /*
> + * This is all a gross hack, but Xen really doesn't have flexible-enough
> + * per-cpu infrastructure to do it properly. For Zen(v1) with SMT active,
> + * MSR_AMD64_LS_CFG is per-core rather than per-thread, so we need a per-core
> + * spinlock to synchronise updates of the MSR.
> + *
> + * We can't use per-cpu state because taking one CPU offline would free state
> + * under the feet of another. Ideally, we'd allocate memory on the AP boot
> + * path, but by the time the sibling information is calculated sufficiently
> + * for us to locate the per-core state, it's too late to fail the AP boot.
> + *
> + * We also can't afford to end up in a heterogeneous scenario with some CPUs
> + * unable to safely use LS_CFG.
> + *
> + * Therefore, we have to allocate for the worse-case scenario, which is
> + * believed to be 4 sockets. Any allocation failure cause us to turn LS_CFG
> + * off, as this is fractionally better than failing to boot.
> + */
> +static struct ssbd_ls_cfg {
> + spinlock_t lock;
> + unsigned int disable_count;
> +} *ssbd_ls_cfg[4];
Same question as to Brian for his original code: Instead of the
hard-coding of 4, can't you use nr_sockets here?
smp_prepare_cpus() runs before pre-SMP initcalls after all.
Jan
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
