On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 05:45:41PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 Mar 2019, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > Subject: perf/x86/intel: Initialize TFA MSR
> > >
> > > Stephane reported that we don't initialize the TFA MSR, which could lead
> > > to trouble if the RESET value is not 0 or on kexec.
> >
> > That sentence doesn't parse.
> >
> > Stephane reported that the TFA MSR is not initialized by the kernel, but
> > the TFA bit could set by firmware or as a leftover from a kexec, which
> > makes the state inconsistent.
> >
> > > Reported-by: Stephane Eranian <eran...@google.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <pet...@infradead.org>
> > > ---
> > > arch/x86/events/intel/core.c | 6 ++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > > index 8baa441d8000..2d3caf2d1384 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/core.c
> > > @@ -3575,6 +3575,12 @@ static void intel_pmu_cpu_starting(int cpu)
> > >
> > > cpuc->lbr_sel = NULL;
> > >
> > > + if (x86_pmu.flags & PMU_FL_TFA) {
> > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(cpuc->tfa_shadow);
> >
> > Hmm. I wouldn't warn here as this is a legit state for kexec/kdump and I
> > don't think we can figure out whether this comes directly from the
> > firmware.
>
> Even on kexec, the cpuc will be freshly allocated and zerod I think. We
> only inherit hardware state, not software state.
Ouch, misread the patch of course ... What about cpu hotplug? Does that
free/alloc or reuse?
Thanks,
tglx
