Re: lapic_suspend/lapic_resume wrong?

[Ingo Molnar]

* Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> while trying to find the reason for a hanging kernel during resume
> handling I found a strange inconsistency in arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> regarding usage of config options.
> 
> Attached patch addresses this, no test done as I'm not sure whether
> this is a correct approach. Can you have a look at it, please?
> 
> 
> Juergen
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> index 2f69e3b..bc06c9d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic.c
> @@ -2270,6 +2270,7 @@ static struct {
>  	unsigned int apic_tmict;
>  	unsigned int apic_tdcr;
>  	unsigned int apic_thmr;
> +	unsigned int apic_cmci;
>  } apic_pm_state;
>  
>  static int lapic_suspend(void)
> @@ -2299,6 +2300,10 @@ static int lapic_suspend(void)
>  	if (maxlvt >= 5)
>  		apic_pm_state.apic_thmr = apic_read(APIC_LVTTHMR);
>  #endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86_MCE_INTEL
> +	if (maxlvt >= 6)
> +		apic_pm_state.apic_cmci = apic_read(APIC_LVTCMCI);
> +#endif
>  
>  	local_irq_save(flags);
>  	disable_local_APIC();
> @@ -2355,10 +2360,14 @@ static void lapic_resume(void)
>  	apic_write(APIC_SPIV, apic_pm_state.apic_spiv);
>  	apic_write(APIC_LVT0, apic_pm_state.apic_lvt0);
>  	apic_write(APIC_LVT1, apic_pm_state.apic_lvt1);
> -#if defined(CONFIG_X86_MCE_INTEL)
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_THERMAL_VECTOR)
>  	if (maxlvt >= 5)
>  		apic_write(APIC_LVTTHMR, apic_pm_state.apic_thmr);
>  #endif
> +#if defined(CONFIG_X86_MCE_INTEL)
> +	if (maxlvt >= 6)
> +		apic_write(APIC_LVTCMCI, apic_pm_state.apic_cmci);
> +#endif
>  	if (maxlvt >= 4)
>  		apic_write(APIC_LVTPC, apic_pm_state.apic_lvtpc);
>  	apic_write(APIC_LVTT, apic_pm_state.apic_lvtt);

the x86 bit looks absolutely sensible to me.

Have you checked whether we indeed lose this value over S/R, or is this mostly 
working fine by accident, due to us executing the CMCI vector initialization via:

  mce_syscore_resume()->__mcheck_cpu_init_vendor()->mce_intel_feature_init()->intel_init_cmci() 

on every resume event?

The Xen fix is unrelated, just put into the same patch, right?

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/