On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 12:15:07 -0200
Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 03:27:50PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:27:33 -0200
> > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 01:27:34PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 16:29:29 -0200
> > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 05:18:38PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:15:46 -0200
> > > > > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 02:05:41PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Currently firmware uses 1 byte at 0x5F offset in RTC CMOS
> > > > > > > > to get number of CPUs present at boot. However 1 byte is
> > > > > > > > not enough to handle more than 255 CPUs. So add a new
> > > > > > > > fw_cfg file that would allow QEMU to tell it.
> > > > > > > > For compat reasons add file only for machine types that
> > > > > > > > support more than 255 CPUs.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> > > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > > static X86CPU *pc_new_cpu(const char *typename, int64_t
> > > > > > > > apic_id,
> > > > > > > > Error **errp)
> > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > @@ -1232,6 +1221,11 @@ static void
> > > > > > > > pc_build_feature_control_file(PCMachineState *pcms)
> > > > > > > > fw_cfg_add_file(pcms->fw_cfg, "etc/msr_feature_control",
> > > > > > > > val, sizeof(*val));
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > +static void rtc_set_cpus_count(ISADevice *rtc, uint16_t
> > > > > > > > cpus_count)
> > > > > > > > +{
> > > > > > > > + rtc_set_memory(rtc, 0x5f, cpus_count - 1);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If we have more than 255 CPUs, shouldn't we at least tell the old
> > > > > > > BIOS that we have 255, instead of silently truncating bits?
> > > > > > It won't do any good to BIOS as it would hang in AP wakeup due to
> > > > > > (expected != woken up) condition.
> > > > >
> > > > > Even in this case, truncating bits makes it a bit unpredictable:
> > > > > having 257 CPUs would set RTC memory to 0, BIOS will believe it
> > > > > is a UP system.
> > > > and it will do AP wakeup regardless, where old BIOS will hang
> > > > due to unexpectedly woken-up CPUs regardless of value in cmos.
> > >
> > > 0 (1 CPU) seems to be the only value that will not hang (at least
> > > it won't hang at the same point). If cmos_cpu_count is 1, SeaBIOS
> > > won't even wait for the other CPUs to wake up.
> > I don't see it in code
> >
> > here is current/old seabios smp init flow:
> >
> > if (BSP HAS APIC DISABLED) {
> > // No apic - only the main cpu is present.
> >
> > dprintf(1, "No apic - only the main cpu is present.\n");
> >
> > CountCPUs= 1;
> >
> > return;
> >
> > }
> >
>
> We also have these lines:
>
> u8 apic_id = ebx>>24;
> FoundAPICIDs[apic_id/32] |= (1 << (apic_id % 32));
> CountCPUs = 1;
>
> > AP WAKEUP regardless of CMOS_BIOS_SMP_COUNT value
> >
> > u8 cmos_smp_count = rtc_read(CMOS_BIOS_SMP_COUNT) + 1;
> >
> > while (cmos_smp_count != CountCPUs) // we are doomed here due to AP
> > race and
> > // mostly hang here regardless of
> > cmos_smp_count value
> > // as CountCPUs could be anything
> > at this point and counting up
>
> CountCPUs will be always 1 on the first (cmos_smp_count !=
> CountCPUs) check, because handle_smp() (which change CountCPUs)
> is protected by SMPLock.
I've overlooked this, that's correct however
BIOS still crashes later in handle_smp()
on APs running wild (usually with KVM emulation error)
> >
> >
> > and it's been pretty much the same logic throughout history,
> > that's why it doesn't matter if rtc_read(CMOS_BIOS_SMP_COUNT) is 0 or
> > something else.
> >
> > SMP support has been introduced by:
> > (e97ca7bd1 Forward port bochs smp changes; rename smpdetect.c to smp.c.)
> >
> >
> > [...]
> > > That said, setting it to 0 (1 CPU) sounds like the best option.
> > > But I would be OK with any other value as long as it is
> > > predictable.
> > So counting above SeaBIOS behavior shall I still set cmos to 0?
>
> In the case we get unpredictable behavior from SeaBIOS for any
> value (I will make some tests to confirm that), setting it to 0
> still seems more likely to avoid weird things from happening with
> BIOSes or OSes we don't control.
ok, it doesn't really matter to me.
I'll set it to 0 and post v5 as reply here
[...]
