Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 18 Jan 2018 10:29:05 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Yu Chen <yu.c.chen@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Juergen Gross <jgross@suse.com>,
        Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Rui Zhang <rui.zhang@intel.com>,
        Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Kexec Mailing List <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        ebiederm@redhat.com, Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: kexec reboot fails with extra wbinvd introduced for AME SME
Message-ID: <20180118022905.GA2933@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
References: <20171213025256.GA1913@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20171213155746.GA29572@yu-chen.sh.intel.com>
 <20171214092429.GA2004@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20180104031537.GA1819@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <20180117072123.GA1866@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFxCuz2K_kE3Huu3Ar32LVmWav__2CPL_=zs2g0devx9-Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20180118014705.GA1812@dhcp-128-65.nay.redhat.com>
 <CA+55aFzc9eXKOdhS-ygQPbr0_N84d8iE8WbSGOWmpJXr1rvDjQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFzc9eXKOdhS-ygQPbr0_N84d8iE8WbSGOWmpJXr1rvDjQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/17/18 at 06:14pm, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 5:47 PM, Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > It does not work with just once wbinvd(), and it only works with
> > removing the wbinvd() for me.  Tom's new post works for me as well
> > since my cpu is an Intel i5-4200U.
> 
> Intriguing.
> 
> It's not like the wbinvd really should be that much of a deal.
> 
> I think Tom's patch is fine and should be applied, but it does worry
> me a bit that even a single wbinvd makes that much of a difference for
> you. There is very little logical reason I can think of that a wbinvd
> should make any difference what-so-ever on an i5-4200U.
> 
> I wonder if you have some system issues, and wbinvd just happens to
> trigger them. But I think we do wbinvd before a suspend-to-RAM too
> (it's "ACPI_FLUSH_CPU_CACHE()" in the ACPI code). And the dmr code
> dioes "wbinvd_on_all_cpus()" which does a cross-call etc.
> 
> Would you mind experimenting a bit with that wbinvd?
> 
> In particular, what happens if you enable it (so it's not hidden by
> the SME check), but you move it up to before interrupts are disabled?

Will play with it more.  Actually I found the hang seems happens
in code of arch/x86/kernel/relocate_kernel_64.S, there is another
wbinvd there as well.

> 
> I'm wondering if there is some issue with MCE generation and wbinvd
> and whatever, and doing it when the CPU is down and interrupts are
> disabled causes some system issue..
> 
> Does anybody have any other ideas?
> 
>                 Linus