Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Tue, 1 Feb 2022 11:56:08 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
Cc:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        "Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "rcu@vger.kernel.org" <rcu@vger.kernel.org>,
        "mimoja@mimoja.de" <mimoja@mimoja.de>,
        "hewenliang4@huawei.com" <hewenliang4@huawei.com>,
        "hushiyuan@huawei.com" <hushiyuan@huawei.com>,
        "luolongjun@huawei.com" <luolongjun@huawei.com>,
        "hejingxian@huawei.com" <hejingxian@huawei.com>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>,
        Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 6/9] x86/smpboot: Support parallel startup of
 secondary CPUs
Message-ID: <YfkRyLV/auNzczfF@zn.tnic>
References: <20211215145633.5238-1-dwmw2@infradead.org>
 <20211215145633.5238-7-dwmw2@infradead.org>
 <d10f529e-b1ee-6220-c6fc-80435f0061ee@amd.com>
 <f25c6ad00689fee6ce3e294393c13f3dcdd5985f.camel@infradead.org>
 <3d8e2d0d-1830-48fb-bc2d-995099f39ef0@amd.com>
 <e742473935bf81be84adea6fa8061ce0846cc630.camel@infradead.org>
 <330bedfee12022c1180d8752fb4abe908dac08d1.camel@infradead.org>
 <YffrVMiO/NalRZjL@zn.tnic>
 <3bc401a9f110a24a429316371c767507b493025a.camel@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3bc401a9f110a24a429316371c767507b493025a.camel@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 01, 2022 at 10:25:01AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> Thanks. It looks like that is only invoked after boot, with a write to
> /sys/devices/system/cpu/microcode/reload.
>
> My series is only parallelising the initial bringup at boot time, so it
> shouldn't make any difference.

No, I don't mean __reload_late() - I pointed you at that function to
show the dance we must do when updating microcode late.

The load_ucode_{ap,bsp}() routines are what is called when loading ucode
early.

So the question is, does the parallelizing change the order in which APs
are brought up and can it happen that a SMT sibling of a two-SMT core
executes *something* while the other SMT sibling is updating microcode.

If so, that would be bad.

> However... it does look like there's nothing preventing a sibling being
> brought online *while* the dance you mention above is occurring.

Bottom line is: of the two SMT siblings, one needs to be updating
microcode while the other is idle. I.e., what __reload_late() does.

> Shouldn't __reload_late() take the device_hotplug_lock to prevent that?

See reload_store().

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette