Bug 1982176

Summary:	Assertion failure when creating 1024 VCPU VM: [...]UefiCpuPkg/CpuMpPei/CpuBist.c(186): !EFI_ERROR (Status)
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8	Reporter:	Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost>
Component:	edk2	Assignee:	Virtualization Maintenance <virt-maint>
Status:	CLOSED WONTFIX	QA Contact:	Yumei Huang <yuhuang>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	low
Version:	8.6	CC:	berrange, coli, jinzhao, juzhang, kkiwi, kraxel, lersek, nilal, pbonzini, virt-maint, xuwei, zhencliu
Target Milestone:	beta	Keywords:	FutureFeature, Triaged
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1983086 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2022-02-07 15:03:45 UTC	Type:	Feature Request
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1788991, 1983086

Description Eduardo Habkost 2021-07-14 11:46:17 UTC

Issue detected while testing bug 1904267:

(In reply to Laszlo Ersek from bug 1904267 comment #57)
> (In reply to Eduardo Habkost from bug 1904267 comment #54)
> > (In reply to Brian Payton from bug 1904267 comment #30)
> > > Simple failure with 1024 vcpus and 8TB
> > 
> > For reference, this is the failure on debugcon:
> > 
> > [...]
> > GetMicrocodePatchInfoFromHob: Microcode patch cache HOB is not found.
> > CpuMpPei: 5-Level Paging = 0
> > Register PPI Notify: 8F9D4825-797D-48FC-8471-845025792EF6
> > 
> > ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status = Out of Resources)
> > ASSERT
> > /builddir/build/BUILD/edk2-ca407c7246bf/UefiCpuPkg/CpuMpPei/CpuBist.c(186):
> > !EFI_ERROR (Status)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > And this is the failing code:
> > 
> >   BistInformationSize = sizeof (EFI_SEC_PLATFORM_INFORMATION_RECORD2) +
> >                         sizeof (EFI_SEC_PLATFORM_INFORMATION_CPU) *
> > NumberOfProcessors;
> >   Status = PeiServicesAllocatePool (
> >              (UINTN) BistInformationSize,
> >              (VOID **) &PlatformInformationRecord2
> >              );
> >   ASSERT_EFI_ERROR (Status);
> > 
> > Maybe we're hitting some limit on allocation sizes?  I don't know what's the
> > size of EFI_SEC_PLATFORM_INFORMATION_RECORD2 and
> > EFI_SEC_PLATFORM_INFORMATION_CPU.
> 
> This is an edk2 design limitation.
> 
> Please file an edk2 bug for RHEL-8, and clone it for RHEL-9.
> 
> Meanwhile I've sent an upstream problem report:
> 
> * [edk2-devel] CPU count limitation in CpuMpPei BIST processing
> 
>  
> https://listman.redhat.com/archives/edk2-devel-archive/2021-June/msg01493.
> html
>   http://mid.mail-archive.com/ffa9d7db-b670-8b88-758f-4785c8d05d40@redhat.com
>   https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/77376

Comment 2 Klaus Heinrich Kiwi 2021-07-16 13:01:41 UTC

Eduardo,

 sounds like this is a standing limitation of edk2 (and not a regression) - can you help us understand the severity? Is this something that we could treat as a RFE?

Comment 3 Eduardo Habkost 2021-07-16 13:29:03 UTC

(In reply to Klaus Heinrich Kiwi from comment #2)
> Eduardo,
> 
>  sounds like this is a standing limitation of edk2 (and not a regression) -
> can you help us understand the severity? Is this something that we could
> treat as a RFE?

Absolutely.  1024-VCPU VMs is not something Red Hat supports yet, and this can be treated as an RFE.

Comment 4 Klaus Heinrich Kiwi 2021-07-19 17:51:47 UTC

(In reply to Eduardo Habkost from comment #3)
> (In reply to Klaus Heinrich Kiwi from comment #2)
> > Eduardo,
> > 
> >  sounds like this is a standing limitation of edk2 (and not a regression) -
> > can you help us understand the severity? Is this something that we could
> > treat as a RFE?
> 
> Absolutely.  1024-VCPU VMs is not something Red Hat supports yet, and this
> can be treated as an RFE.

Thanks.. for now, I'm attributing the 'low priority' with 'medium severity' given it's something we want to support eventually.

Comment 8 Klaus Heinrich Kiwi 2022-02-07 15:03:45 UTC

Rejecting this Bug as we're not currently planning on bringing this work on RHEL 8.x line. The RHEL9 Bug can be tracked at Bug 1983086