[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v5 09/10] x68: acpi: trigger SMI before sending hotplug Notif
|
From: |
Igor Mammedov |
|
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v5 09/10] x68: acpi: trigger SMI before sending hotplug Notify event to OSPM |
|
Date: |
Tue, 8 Sep 2020 09:39:33 +0200 |
On Mon, 7 Sep 2020 17:17:52 +0200
Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Igor,
>
> On 09/07/20 13:23, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > In case firmware has negotiated CPU hotplug SMI feature, generate
> > AML to describe SMI IO port region and send SMI to firmware
> > on each CPU hotplug SCI in case new CPUs were hotplugged.
> >
> > Since new CPUs can be hotplugged while CPU_SCAN_METHOD is running
> > we can't send SMI before new CPUs are fetched from QEMU as it
> > could cause sending Notify to a CPU that firmware hasn't seen yet.
> > So fetch new CPUs into local cache first, then send SMI and
> > after that send Notify events to cached CPUs. This should ensure
> > that Notify is sent only to CPUs which were processed by firmware
> > first.
> > Any CPUs that were hotplugged after caching will be processed
> > by the next CPU_SCAN_METHOD, when pending SCI is handled.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > v5:
> > - fix hotplug on Windows when there is more than 256 possible CPUs
> > (Windows isn't able to handle VarPackage over 255 elements
> > so process CPUs in batches)
> > - (Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>)
> > - fix off-by-one in package length
> > - fix not selecting CPU before clearing insert event
> > - use aml_lgreater() instead of aml_lnot(aml_equal(num_added_cpus,
> > zero)
> > - split off in separate patches:
> > - making smi_negotiated_features a property
> > - introduction of AcpiPmInfo.smi_on_cpuhp
> > - introduction of PCI0.SMI0 ACPI device
> > v2:
> > - clear insert event after firmware has returned
> > control from SMI. (Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>)
> > v1:
> > - make sure that Notify is sent only to CPUs seen by FW
> > - (Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>)
> > - use macro instead of x-smi-negotiated-features
> > - style fixes
> > - reserve whole SMI block (0xB2, 0xB3)
> > v0:
> > - s/aml_string/aml_eisaid/
> > /fixes Windows BSOD, on nonsense value/ (Laszlo Ersek
> > <lersek@redhat.com>)
> > - put SMI device under PCI0 like the rest of hotplug IO port
> > - do not generate SMI AML if CPU hotplug SMI feature hasn't been
> > negotiated
> > ---
> > hw/acpi/cpu.c | 156 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 129 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/acpi/cpu.c b/hw/acpi/cpu.c
> > index 3d6a500fb7..1283972001 100644
> > --- a/hw/acpi/cpu.c
> > +++ b/hw/acpi/cpu.c
> > @@ -14,6 +14,8 @@
> > #define ACPI_CPU_CMD_DATA_OFFSET_RW 8
> > #define ACPI_CPU_CMD_DATA2_OFFSET_R 0
> >
> > +#define OVMF_CPUHP_SMI_CMD 4
> > +
> > enum {
> > CPHP_GET_NEXT_CPU_WITH_EVENT_CMD = 0,
> > CPHP_OST_EVENT_CMD = 1,
> > @@ -321,6 +323,7 @@ const VMStateDescription vmstate_cpu_hotplug = {
> > #define CPU_NOTIFY_METHOD "CTFY"
> > #define CPU_EJECT_METHOD "CEJ0"
> > #define CPU_OST_METHOD "COST"
> > +#define CPU_ADDED_LIST "CNEW"
> >
> > #define CPU_ENABLED "CPEN"
> > #define CPU_SELECTOR "CSEL"
> > @@ -465,42 +468,141 @@ void build_cpus_aml(Aml *table, MachineState
> > *machine, CPUHotplugFeatures opts,
> >
> > method = aml_method(CPU_SCAN_METHOD, 0, AML_SERIALIZED);
> > {
> > + const uint8_t max_cpus_per_pass = 255;
> > Aml *else_ctx;
> > - Aml *while_ctx;
> > + Aml *while_ctx, *while_ctx2;
> > Aml *has_event = aml_local(0);
> > Aml *dev_chk = aml_int(1);
> > Aml *eject_req = aml_int(3);
> > Aml *next_cpu_cmd = aml_int(CPHP_GET_NEXT_CPU_WITH_EVENT_CMD);
> > + Aml *num_added_cpus = aml_local(1);
> > + Aml *cpu_idx = aml_local(2);
> > + Aml *uid = aml_local(3);
> > + Aml *has_job = aml_local(4);
> > + Aml *new_cpus = aml_name(CPU_ADDED_LIST);
> >
> > aml_append(method, aml_acquire(ctrl_lock, 0xFFFF));
> > - aml_append(method, aml_store(one, has_event));
> > - while_ctx = aml_while(aml_equal(has_event, one));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Windows versions newer than XP (including Windows 10/Windows
> > + * Server 2019), do support* VarPackageOp but, it is cripled
> > to hold
> > + * the same elements number as old PackageOp.
> > + * For compatibility with Windows XP (so it won't crash) use
> > ACPI1.0
> > + * PackageOp which can hold max 255 elements.
> > + *
> > + * use named package as old Windows don't support it in local
> > var
> > + */
> > + aml_append(method, aml_name_decl(CPU_ADDED_LIST,
> > +
> > aml_package(max_cpus_per_pass)));
> > +
> > + aml_append(method, aml_store(zero, uid));
> > + aml_append(method, aml_store(one, has_job));
> > + /*
> > + * CPU_ADDED_LIST can hold limited number of elements, outer
> > loop
> > + * allows to process CPUs in batches which let us to handle
> > more
> > + * CPUs than CPU_ADDED_LIST can hold.
> > + */
> > + while_ctx2 = aml_while(aml_equal(has_job, one));
> > {
> > - /* clear loop exit condition, ins_evt/rm_evt checks
> > - * will set it to 1 while next_cpu_cmd returns a CPU
> > - * with events */
> > - aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(zero, has_event));
> > - aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(next_cpu_cmd, cpu_cmd));
> > - ifctx = aml_if(aml_equal(ins_evt, one));
> > - {
> > - aml_append(ifctx,
> > - aml_call2(CPU_NOTIFY_METHOD, cpu_data, dev_chk));
> > - aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, ins_evt));
> > - aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, has_event));
> > - }
> > - aml_append(while_ctx, ifctx);
> > - else_ctx = aml_else();
> > - ifctx = aml_if(aml_equal(rm_evt, one));
> > - {
> > - aml_append(ifctx,
> > - aml_call2(CPU_NOTIFY_METHOD, cpu_data,
> > eject_req));
> > - aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, rm_evt));
> > - aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, has_event));
> > - }
> > - aml_append(else_ctx, ifctx);
> > - aml_append(while_ctx, else_ctx);
> > + aml_append(while_ctx2, aml_store(zero, has_job));
> > +
> > + aml_append(while_ctx2, aml_store(one, has_event));
> > + aml_append(while_ctx2, aml_store(zero, num_added_cpus));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Scan CPUs, till there are CPUs with events or
> > + * CPU_ADDED_LIST capacity is exhausted
> > + */
> > + while_ctx = aml_while(aml_land(aml_equal(has_event, one),
> > + aml_lless(uid,
> > aml_int(arch_ids->len))));
> > + {
> > + /*
> > + * clear loop exit condition, ins_evt/rm_evt checks
> > will
> > + * set it to 1 while next_cpu_cmd returns a CPU with
> > events
> > + */
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(zero, has_event));
> > +
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(uid, cpu_selector));
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(next_cpu_cmd,
> > cpu_cmd));
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * wrap around case, scan is complete, exit loop.
> > + * It happens since events are not cleared in scan
> > loop,
> > + * so next_cpu_cmd continues to find already
> > processed CPUs
> > + */
> > + ifctx = aml_if(aml_lless(cpu_data, uid));
> > + {
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_break());
> > + }
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, ifctx);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * if CPU_ADDED_LIST is full, exit inner loop and
> > process
> > + * collected CPUs
> > + */
> > + ifctx = aml_if(
> > + aml_equal(num_added_cpus,
> > aml_int(max_cpus_per_pass)));
> > + {
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, has_job));
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_break());
> > + }
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, ifctx);
> > +
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(cpu_data, uid));
> > + ifctx = aml_if(aml_equal(ins_evt, one));
> > + {
> > + /* cache added CPUs to Notify/Wakeup later */
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(uid,
> > + aml_index(new_cpus, num_added_cpus)));
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_increment(num_added_cpus));
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, has_event));
> > + }
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, ifctx);
> > + else_ctx = aml_else();
> > + ifctx = aml_if(aml_equal(rm_evt, one));
> > + {
> > + aml_append(ifctx,
> > + aml_call2(CPU_NOTIFY_METHOD, uid, eject_req));
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, rm_evt));
> > + aml_append(ifctx, aml_store(one, has_event));
> > + }
> > + aml_append(else_ctx, ifctx);
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, else_ctx);
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_increment(uid));
> > + }
> > + aml_append(while_ctx2, while_ctx);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * in case FW negotiated ICH9_LPC_SMI_F_CPU_HOTPLUG_BIT,
> > + * make upcall to FW, so it can pull in new CPUs before
> > + * OS is notified and wakes them up
> > + */
> > + if (opts.smi_path) {
> > + ifctx = aml_if(aml_lgreater(num_added_cpus, zero));
> > + {
> > + aml_append(ifctx,
> > aml_store(aml_int(OVMF_CPUHP_SMI_CMD),
> > + aml_name("%s", opts.smi_path)));
> > + }
> > + aml_append(while_ctx2, ifctx);
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Notify OSPM about new CPUs and clear insert events */
> > + aml_append(while_ctx2, aml_store(zero, cpu_idx));
> > + while_ctx = aml_while(aml_lless(cpu_idx, num_added_cpus));
> > + {
> > + aml_append(while_ctx,
> > + aml_store(aml_derefof(aml_index(new_cpus,
> > cpu_idx)),
> > + uid));
> > + aml_append(while_ctx,
> > + aml_call2(CPU_NOTIFY_METHOD, uid, dev_chk));
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(uid, aml_debug()));
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(uid, cpu_selector));
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_store(one, ins_evt));
> > + aml_append(while_ctx, aml_increment(cpu_idx));
> > + }
> > + aml_append(while_ctx2, while_ctx);
> > }
> > - aml_append(method, while_ctx);
> > + aml_append(method, while_ctx2);
> > aml_append(method, aml_release(ctrl_lock));
> > }
> > aml_append(cpus_dev, method);
> >
>
> Here's the ASL decompiled, and using the meaningful local variable names
> (and 8 possible VCPUs):
>
> 1 Method (CSCN, 0, Serialized)
> 2 {
> 3 Acquire (\_SB.PCI0.PRES.CPLK, 0xFFFF)
> 4 Name (CNEW, Package (0xFF){})
> 5 Local_Uid = Zero
> 6 Local_HasJob = One
> 7 While ((Local_HasJob == One))
> 8 {
> 9 Local_HasJob = Zero
> 10 Local_HasEvent = One
> 11 Local_NumAddedCpus = Zero
> 12 While (((Local_HasEvent == One) && (Local_Uid <
> 0x08)))
> 13 {
> 14 Local_HasEvent = Zero
> 15 \_SB.PCI0.PRES.CSEL = Local_Uid
> 16 \_SB.PCI0.PRES.CCMD = Zero
> 17 If ((\_SB.PCI0.PRES.CDAT < Local_Uid))
> 18 {
> 19 Break
> 20 }
> 21
> 22 If ((Local_NumAddedCpus == 0xFF))
> 23 {
> 24 Local_HasJob = One
> 25 Break
> 26 }
> 27
> 28 Local_Uid = \_SB.PCI0.PRES.CDAT
> 29 If ((\_SB.PCI0.PRES.CINS == One))
> 30 {
> 31 CNEW [Local_NumAddedCpus] = Local_Uid
> 32 Local_NumAddedCpus++
> 33 Local_HasEvent = One
> 34 }
> 35 ElseIf ((\_SB.PCI0.PRES.CRMV == One))
> 36 {
> 37 CTFY (Local_Uid, 0x03)
> 38 \_SB.PCI0.PRES.CRMV = One
> 39 Local_HasEvent = One
> 40 }
> 41
> 42 Local_Uid++
> 43 }
> 44
> 45 If ((Local_NumAddedCpus > Zero))
> 46 {
> 47 \_SB.PCI0.SMI0.SMIC = 0x04
> 48 }
> 49
> 50 Local_CpuIdx = Zero
> 51 While ((Local_CpuIdx < Local_NumAddedCpus))
> 52 {
> 53 Local_Uid = DerefOf (CNEW [Local_CpuIdx])
> 54 CTFY (Local_Uid, One)
> 55 Debug = Local_Uid
> 56 \_SB.PCI0.PRES.CSEL = Local_Uid
> 57 \_SB.PCI0.PRES.CINS = One
> 58 Local_CpuIdx++
> 59 }
> 60 }
> 61
> 62 Release (\_SB.PCI0.PRES.CPLK)
> 63 }
>
> When we take the Break on line 25, then:
>
> (a) on line 25, the following equality holds:
>
> Local_Uid == CNEW[Local_NumAddedCpus - 1] + 1
>
> (b) on line 60, the following equality holds:
>
> Local_Uid == CNEW[Local_NumAddedCpus - 1]
>
> This means that, when we write Local_Uid to CSEL on line 15 again, then:
>
> - we effectively re-investigate the last-cached CPU (with selector value
> CNEW[Local_NumAddedCpus - 1])
>
> - rather than resuming the scanning right after it -- that is, with
> selector value (CNEW[Local_NumAddedCpus - 1] + 1) --, in the spirit of
> line 42.
>
> My question is: is this "rewind" intentional?
>
> Now, I don't see a functionality problem with this, as on line 57, we
> clear the pending insert event for the last-cached CPU, so when we
> re-check it, the "get pending" command will simply seek past it.
>
> But I'd like to understand if this is *precisely* your intent, or if
> it's an oversight and it just ends up working OK.
it's the later (it should not have any adverse effects) so I didn't care
much about restarting from the last processed CPU.
how about moving
22 If ((Local_NumAddedCpus == 0xFF))
23 {
24 Local_HasJob = One
25 Break
26 }
right after
40 }
41
42 Local_Uid++
instead of adding extra 'if' at the end of outer loop?
>
> Basically my question is whether we should add, on top:
>
> > --- cscn.v5 2020-09-07 15:02:13.401663487 +0200
> > +++ cscn.v5.incr 2020-09-07 16:52:22.133843710 +0200
> > @@ -57,6 +57,10 @@
> > \_SB.PCI0.PRES.CINS = One
> > Local_CpuIdx++
> > }
> > +
> > + if ((Local_HasJob == One)) {
> > + Local_Uid++
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > Release (\_SB.PCI0.PRES.CPLK)
>
> If not -- that is, the currently proposed patch is intentional --, then
> I think we should add a comment, about the effective "rewind" being
> intentional & okay.
>
> (Note: it's certainly valid and necessary to re-write CSEL on line 15
> after raising the SMI on line 47; the question is not whether we should
> or should not re-write CSEL (we must!), but the specific value that we
> write to CSEL.)
>
> So:
>
> - If the outer loop body is entered only once, then the patch looks
> fine, from both the review side, and the testing side (I tested it
> with 4-8 possible VCPUs).
>
> - If the outer loop body is entered twice or more, then from the review
> side, please my question above. From the testing side: do you have an
> environment where I could test this with OVMF?
>
> (I expect it to work OK. Upon the first SMI, the firmware will likely
> pick up more VCPUs than what's in CNEW. But edk2 commit 020bb4b46d6f
> ("OvmfPkg/CpuHotplugSmm: fix CPU hotplug race just before SMI
> broadcast", 2020-08-27) should deal with that.)
it should work, as firmware doesn't have to jump over hoops to
accomodate Windows quirks.
> Hmm, actually, there's no need for a special environment: I can patch
> QEMU and lower "max_cpus_per_pass" to something small, such as "3" or
> whatever, for testing the outer loop multiple times. But first I'd like
> to know your thoughts on the "rewind".
modulo OVMF, I've tested both:
- hacking max_cpus_per_pass to simulate multiple passes of the outer loop
- with maxcpus=288 to cross 255 thresold (2 passes of outer loop), to check
that WS2019 is still working.
> Thanks!
> Laszlo
>
>
- [PATCH v5 05/10] tests: acpi: mark to be changed tables in bios-tables-test-allowed-diff, (continued)
- [PATCH v5 05/10] tests: acpi: mark to be changed tables in bios-tables-test-allowed-diff, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/07
- [PATCH v5 04/10] acpi: add aml_land() and aml_break() primitives, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/07
- [PATCH v5 06/10] x86: ich9: expose "smi_negotiated_features" as a QOM property, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/07
- [PATCH v5 07/10] x86: acpi: introduce AcpiPmInfo::smi_on_cpuhp, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/07
- [PATCH v5 08/10] x86: acpi: introduce the PCI0.SMI0 ACPI device, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/07
- [PATCH v5 09/10] x68: acpi: trigger SMI before sending hotplug Notify event to OSPM, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/07
- [PATCH v5 9/10] fixup! x68: acpi: trigger SMI before sending hotplug Notify event to OSPM, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/08
[PATCH v5 10/10] tests: acpi: update acpi blobs with new AML, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/07
Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] x86: fix cpu hotplug with secure boot, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/08
Re: [PATCH v5 00/10] x86: fix cpu hotplug with secure boot, Igor Mammedov, 2020/09/21