summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/drivers
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorBorislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>2021-05-27 11:02:26 +0200
committerBorislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>2021-05-31 22:32:26 +0200
commit9a90ed065a155d13db0d0ffeaad5cc54e51c90c6 (patch)
treed96b4305dba9f35abc307c07b5fe38a9db2c2301 /drivers
parent7d65f9e80646c595e8c853640a9d0768a33e204c (diff)
x86/thermal: Fix LVT thermal setup for SMI delivery mode
There are machines out there with added value crap^WBIOS which provide an SMI handler for the local APIC thermal sensor interrupt. Out of reset, the BSP on those machines has something like 0x200 in that APIC register (timestamps left in because this whole issue is timing sensitive): [ 0.033858] read lvtthmr: 0x330, val: 0x200 which means: - bit 16 - the interrupt mask bit is clear and thus that interrupt is enabled - bits [10:8] have 010b which means SMI delivery mode. Now, later during boot, when the kernel programs the local APIC, it soft-disables it temporarily through the spurious vector register: setup_local_APIC: ... /* * If this comes from kexec/kcrash the APIC might be enabled in * SPIV. Soft disable it before doing further initialization. */ value = apic_read(APIC_SPIV); value &= ~APIC_SPIV_APIC_ENABLED; apic_write(APIC_SPIV, value); which means (from the SDM): "10.4.7.2 Local APIC State After It Has Been Software Disabled ... * The mask bits for all the LVT entries are set. Attempts to reset these bits will be ignored." And this happens too: [ 0.124111] APIC: Switch to symmetric I/O mode setup [ 0.124117] lvtthmr 0x200 before write 0xf to APIC 0xf0 [ 0.124118] lvtthmr 0x10200 after write 0xf to APIC 0xf0 This results in CPU 0 soft lockups depending on the placement in time when the APIC soft-disable happens. Those soft lockups are not 100% reproducible and the reason for that can only be speculated as no one tells you what SMM does. Likely, it confuses the SMM code that the APIC is disabled and the thermal interrupt doesn't doesn't fire at all, leading to CPU 0 stuck in SMM forever... Now, before 4f432e8bb15b ("x86/mce: Get rid of mcheck_intel_therm_init()") due to how the APIC_LVTTHMR was read before APIC initialization in mcheck_intel_therm_init(), it would read the value with the mask bit 16 clear and then intel_init_thermal() would replicate it onto the APs and all would be peachy - the thermal interrupt would remain enabled. But that commit moved that reading to a later moment in intel_init_thermal(), resulting in reading APIC_LVTTHMR on the BSP too late and with its interrupt mask bit set. Thus, revert back to the old behavior of reading the thermal LVT register before the APIC gets initialized. Fixes: 4f432e8bb15b ("x86/mce: Get rid of mcheck_intel_therm_init()") Reported-by: James Feeney <james@nurealm.net> Signed-off-by: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> Cc: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com> Cc: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@linux.intel.com> Link: https://lkml.kernel.org/r/YKIqDdFNaXYd39wz@zn.tnic
Diffstat (limited to 'drivers')
-rw-r--r--drivers/thermal/intel/therm_throt.c15
1 files changed, 11 insertions, 4 deletions
diff --git a/drivers/thermal/intel/therm_throt.c b/drivers/thermal/intel/therm_throt.c
index f8e882592ba5..99abdc03c44c 100644
--- a/drivers/thermal/intel/therm_throt.c
+++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/therm_throt.c
@@ -621,6 +621,17 @@ bool x86_thermal_enabled(void)
return atomic_read(&therm_throt_en);
}
+void __init therm_lvt_init(void)
+{
+ /*
+ * This function is only called on boot CPU. Save the init thermal
+ * LVT value on BSP and use that value to restore APs' thermal LVT
+ * entry BIOS programmed later
+ */
+ if (intel_thermal_supported(&boot_cpu_data))
+ lvtthmr_init = apic_read(APIC_LVTTHMR);
+}
+
void intel_init_thermal(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
{
unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
@@ -630,10 +641,6 @@ void intel_init_thermal(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
if (!intel_thermal_supported(c))
return;
- /* On the BSP? */
- if (c == &boot_cpu_data)
- lvtthmr_init = apic_read(APIC_LVTTHMR);
-
/*
* First check if its enabled already, in which case there might
* be some SMM goo which handles it, so we can't even put a handler