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 10:57:02 +0800
From:   Dave Young <dyoung@redhat.com>
To:     Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        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>,
        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: <20180118025702.GA2242@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>
 <47fe0d37-93d9-1394-062a-f973a38daa16@linux.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <47fe0d37-93d9-1394-062a-f973a38daa16@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.1 (2017-09-22)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 01/17/18 at 06:53pm, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> > 
> > Does anybody have any other ideas?
> 
> wbinvd is thankfully not common, but also not rare (MTRR setup and a bunch of other cases)
> and in some other operating systems it happens even more than on Linux.. it's generally not totally broken like this.
> 
> I can only imagine a machine check case where a write back to a bad cell causes some parity error
> or something...  but it's odd that no other machine checks are reported?
> (can the user check for this please)

Could you say more about how to check this? My .config disabled
CONFIG_X86_MCE, should this be enabled?

Thanks
Dave