| Date | Mon, 7 Aug 2023 07:28:46 -0700 | Subject | Re: [patch 02/53] x86/cpu/topology: Make the APIC mismatch warnings complete | From | Arjan van de Ven <> |
| |
On 8/7/2023 6:52 AM, T > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/topology_common.c > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/topology_common.c > @@ -176,6 +176,16 @@ void cpu_parse_topology(struct cpuinfo_x > > parse_topology(&tscan, false); > > + if (c->topo.initial_apicid != c->topo.apicid) { > + pr_err(FW_BUG "CPU%4u: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x%04x APIC: 0x%04x\n", > + cpu, c->topo.initial_apicid, c->topo.apicid); > + } > + > + if (c->topo.apicid != cpuid_to_apicid[cpu]) { > + pr_err(FW_BUG "CPU%4u: APIC ID mismatch. Firmware: 0x%04x APIC: 0x%04x\n", > + cpu, cpuid_to_apicid[cpu], c->topo.apicid); > + } > +
while these messages are basically the same as current ones they are short one key thing for the user ... which one of the two will be used. Yes one can look up in the source code where the message comes from and reverse engineer that... or we can just add this to these pr_err() messages
like
pr_err(FW_BUG "CPU%4u: APIC ID mismatch. CPUID: 0x%04x APIC: 0x%04x. APIC value will be used.\n", cpu, c->topo.initial_apicid, c->topo.apicid);
> for (dom = TOPO_SMT_DOMAIN; dom < TOPO_MAX_DOMAIN; dom++) { > if (tscan.dom_shifts[dom] == x86_topo_system.dom_shifts[dom]) > continue; >
|