x86/microcode/intel: Quieten down microcode updates on large systems
Subsystems (2)
PATCH 1/1 x86/microcode/intel: Quieten down microcode updates on large systems
From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
On large systems the microcode driver is very noisy, because it prints a line for each CPU. The lines are redundant because because usually all CPUs are updated to the same microcode revision.
All other subsystems have been patched previously to not print a line for each CPU. Only the microcode driver is left.
Only print an microcode revision update when something changed. This results in typically only a single line being printed.
v2: Change message to "One or more CPUs"
--- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c +18 -7
@@ -794,6 +794,7 @@ void reload_ucode_intel(void)static int collect_cpu_info (int cpu_num,struct cpu_signature *csig) { +static struct cpu_signature prev;struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data (cpu_num);unsigned int val[2 ];
@@ -808,8 +809,14 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig) } csig->rev = c->microcode; -pr_info ("CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n" , - cpu_num, csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev); + +/* No extra locking on prev, races are harmless. */ +if (csig->sig != prev.sig || csig->pf != prev.pf || + csig->rev != prev.rev) { +pr_info ("One or more CPUs sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n" , + csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev); + prev = *csig; + }return 0 ; }
@@ -838,6 +845,7 @@ static int apply_microcode_intel(int cpu)struct ucode_cpu_info *uci;struct cpuinfo_x86 *c;unsigned int val[2 ]; +static int prev_rev;/* We should bind the task to the CPU */ if (WARN_ON (raw_smp_processor_id () != cpu))
@@ -872,11 +880,14 @@ static int apply_microcode_intel(int cpu)return -1 ; } -pr_info ("CPU%d updated to revision 0x%x, date = %04x-%02x-%02x\n" , - cpu, val[1 ], - mc->hdr.date &0xffff , - mc->hdr.date >>24 , - (mc->hdr.date >>16 ) &0xff ); +if (val[1 ] != prev_rev) { +pr_info ("One or more CPUs updated to revision 0x%x, date = %04x-%02x-%02x\n" , + val[1 ], + mc->hdr.date &0xffff , + mc->hdr.date >>24 , + (mc->hdr.date >>16 ) &0xff ); + prev_rev = val[1 ]; + } c = &cpu_data (cpu);
Signature · 1 line
2.8.3
Quoted 6 lines · Andi Kleen
From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
On large systems the microcode driver is very noisy, because it prints a line for each CPU. The lines are redundant because because usually all CPUs are updated to the same microcode revision.
Quoted 8 lines
All other subsystems have been patched previously to not print a line for each CPU. Only the microcode driver is left.
Only print an microcode revision update when something changed. This results in typically only a single line being printed.
v2: Change message to "One or more CPUs"
Signed-off-by Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
Thanks, for WLIW,
Quoted 61 lines
--- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c +18
-7@@ -794,6 +794,7 @@ void reload_ucode_intel(void)static int collect_cpu_info (int cpu_num,struct cpu_signature *csig) { +static struct cpu_signature prev;struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data (cpu_num);unsigned int val[2 ];@@ -808,8 +809,14 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig) } csig->rev = c->microcode; -pr_info ("CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n" , - cpu_num, csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev); + +/* No extra locking on prev, races are harmless. */ +if (csig->sig != prev.sig || csig->pf != prev.pf || + csig->rev != prev.rev) { +pr_info ("One or more CPUs sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n" , + csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev); + prev = *csig; + }return 0 ; }@@ -838,6 +845,7 @@ static int apply_microcode_intel(int cpu)struct ucode_cpu_info *uci;struct cpuinfo_x86 *c;unsigned int val[2 ]; +static int prev_rev;/* We should bind the task to the CPU */ if (WARN_ON (raw_smp_processor_id () != cpu))@@ -872,11 +880,14 @@ static int apply_microcode_intel(int cpu)return -1 ; } -pr_info ("CPU%d updated to revision 0x%x, date = %04x-%02x-%02x\n" , - cpu, val[1 ], - mc->hdr.date &0xffff , - mc->hdr.date >>24 , - (mc->hdr.date >>16 ) &0xff ); +if (val[1 ] != prev_rev) { +pr_info ("One or more CPUs updated to revision 0x%x, date = %04x-%02x-%02x\n" , + val[1 ], + mc->hdr.date &0xffff , + mc->hdr.date >>24 , + (mc->hdr.date >>16 ) &0xff ); + prev_rev = val[1 ]; + } c = &cpu_data (cpu);
Signature · 4 lines
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh
Borislav Petkov
maintainerQuoted 31 lines · Andi Kleen
From: Andi Kleen <[email protected]>
On large systems the microcode driver is very noisy, because it prints a line for each CPU. The lines are redundant because because usually all CPUs are updated to the same microcode revision.
All other subsystems have been patched previously to not print a line for each CPU. Only the microcode driver is left.
Only print an microcode revision update when something changed. This results in typically only a single line being printed.
v2: Change message to "One or more CPUs"
Signed-off-by Andi Kleen <[email protected]>--- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c +1
-0@@ -794,6 +794,7 @@ void reload_ucode_intel(void)static int collect_cpu_info (int cpu_num,struct cpu_signature *csig) { +static struct cpu_signature prev;struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data (cpu_num);unsigned int val[2 ];
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c static int collect_cpu_info(int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig) · line 816
Quoted 10 lines
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c +5
-2@@ -808,8 +809,14 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig) } csig->rev = c->microcode; -pr_info ("CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n" , - cpu_num, csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev); + +/* No extra locking on prev, races are harmless. */ +if (csig->sig != prev.sig || csig->pf != prev.pf || + csig->rev != prev.rev) { + pr_info("One or more CPUs sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n",
This "One or more CPUs" is just silly. I've removed it while applying. This way, there's no mentioning of CPUs and people can check /proc/cpuinfo for that.
Thanks.
Signature · 4 lines
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.tip-bot for Andi Kleen
merge bot[tip:x86/microcode] x86/microcode/intel: Do not issue microcode updates messages on each CPU
In reply to Andi Kleenx86/microcode/intel: Do not issue microcode updates messages on each CPU
Commit-ID: 354542d034ab2a849a284edcc661e76b753a57dc Gitweb: http://git.kernel.org/tip/354542d034ab2a849a284edcc661e76b753a57dc Author: Andi Kleen <[email protected]> AuthorDate: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 06:41:41 -0700 Committer: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> CommitDate: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:51:43 +0200
x86/microcode/intel: Do not issue microcode updates messages on each CPU
On large systems the microcode driver is very noisy, because it prints a line for each CPU. The lines are redundant because usually all CPUs are updated to the same microcode revision.
All other subsystems have been patched previously to not print a line for each CPU. Only the microcode driver is left.
Only print an microcode revision update when something changed. This results in typically only a single line being printed.
--- arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
arch/x86/kernel/cpu/microcode/intel.c +17 -7
@@ -843,6 +843,7 @@ void reload_ucode_intel(void)static int collect_cpu_info (int cpu_num,struct cpu_signature *csig) { +static struct cpu_signature prev;struct cpuinfo_x86 *c = &cpu_data (cpu_num);unsigned int val[2 ];
@@ -857,8 +858,13 @@ static int collect_cpu_info(int cpu_num, struct cpu_signature *csig) } csig->rev = c->microcode; -pr_info ("CPU%d sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n" , - cpu_num, csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev); + +/* No extra locking on prev, races are harmless. */ +if (csig->sig != prev.sig || csig->pf != prev.pf || csig->rev != prev.rev) { +pr_info ("sig=0x%x, pf=0x%x, revision=0x%x\n" , + csig->sig, csig->pf, csig->rev); + prev = *csig; + }return 0 ; }
@@ -887,6 +893,7 @@ static int apply_microcode_intel(int cpu)struct ucode_cpu_info *uci;struct cpuinfo_x86 *c;unsigned int val[2 ]; +static int prev_rev;/* We should bind the task to the CPU */ if (WARN_ON (raw_smp_processor_id () != cpu))
@@ -921,11 +928,14 @@ static int apply_microcode_intel(int cpu)return -1 ; } -pr_info ("CPU%d updated to revision 0x%x, date = %04x-%02x-%02x\n" , - cpu, val[1 ], - mc->hdr.date &0xffff , - mc->hdr.date >>24 , - (mc->hdr.date >>16 ) &0xff ); +if (val[1 ] != prev_rev) { +pr_info ("updated to revision 0x%x, date = %04x-%02x-%02x\n" , + val[1 ], + mc->hdr.date &0xffff , + mc->hdr.date >>24 , + (mc->hdr.date >>16 ) &0xff ); + prev_rev = val[1 ]; + } c = &cpu_data (cpu);