Re: [patch V4 28/41] x86/cpu: Provide a sane leaf 0xb/0x1f parser
From: Zhang, Rui
Date: Wed Aug 16 2023 - 08:11:12 EST
> +
> +static inline bool topo_subleaf(struct topo_scan *tscan, u32 leaf,
> u32 subleaf,
> + unsigned int *last_dom)
> +{
> + unsigned int dom, maxtype = leaf == 0xb ? CORE_TYPE + 1 :
> MAX_TYPE;
> + struct {
> + // eax
> + u32 x2apic_shift : 5, // Number of bits to
> shift APIC ID right
> + // for the topology ID
> at the next level
> + __rsvd0 : 27; // Reserved
> + // ebx
> + u32 num_processors : 16, // Number of processors
> at current level
> + __rsvd1 : 16; // Reserved
> + // ecx
> + u32 level : 8, // Current topology
> level. Same as sub leaf number
> + type : 8, // Level type. If 0,
> invalid
> + __rsvd2 : 16; // Reserved
> + // edx
> + u32 x2apic_id : 32; // X2APIC ID of the
> current logical processor
> + } sl;
> +
> + cpuid_subleaf(leaf, subleaf, &sl);
> +
> + if (!sl.num_processors || sl.type == INVALID_TYPE)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (sl.type >= maxtype) {
> + pr_err_once("Topology: leaf 0x%x:%d Unknown domain
> type %u\n",
> + leaf, subleaf, sl.type);
> + /*
> + * The subleafs are ordered in domain level order so
> + * propagate it into the next domain level carefully:
> if
> + * the last domain level was PKG, then overwrite PKG
> + * as otherwise this would end up in the root domain.
> + *
> + * It really would have been too obvious to make the
> domain
> + * type space sparse and leave a few reserved types
> between
> + * the points which might change instead of following
> the
> + * usual "this can be fixed in software" principle.
> + */
> + dom = *last_dom == TOPO_PKG_DOMAIN ? TOPO_PKG_DOMAIN
> : *last_dom + 1;
> + } else {
> + dom = topo_domain_map[sl.type];
> + *last_dom = dom;
> + }
> +
> + if (!dom) {
> + tscan->c->topo.initial_apicid = sl.x2apic_id;
> + } else if (tscan->c->topo.initial_apicid != sl.x2apic_id) {
> + pr_warn_once(FW_BUG "CPUID leaf 0x%x subleaf %d APIC
> ID mismatch %x != %x\n",
> + leaf, subleaf, tscan->c-
> >topo.initial_apicid, sl.x2apic_id);
> + }
> +
Maybe worth a warning somewhere if sl.x2apic_shift !=
x86_topo_system.dom_shifts[dom], because invariant x2apic_shift (for
the same level) among different CPUs is critical for this patch series.
And I do see variant x2apic_shift on an Intel AlderLake NUC, which has
been identified to be a microcode bug later.
thanks,
rui