From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/12] x86: improve psr scheduling code
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 10:28:59 +0100
Message-ID: <552797DB.5030307@citrix.com>
References: <1428571105-3604-1-git-send-email-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
	<1428571105-3604-3-git-send-email-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
	<5526E8C1.3060302@citrix.com>
	<20150410072441.GA3417@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <20150410072441.GA3417@pengc-linux.bj.intel.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Chao Peng <chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com>
Cc: keir@xen.org, Ian.Campbell@citrix.com, stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com, Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com, xen-devel@lists.xen.org, will.auld@intel.com, JBeulich@suse.com, wei.liu2@citrix.com, dgdegra@tycho.nsa.gov
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 10/04/15 08:24, Chao Peng wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:01:53PM +0100, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 09/04/2015 10:18, Chao Peng wrote:
>>> +static inline void psr_assoc_init(unsigned int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> +    struct psr_assoc *psra = &per_cpu(psr_assoc, cpu);
>>> +
>>> +    if ( psr_cmt_enabled() )
>>> +        rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_PSR_ASSOC, psra->val);
>>> +}
>> On further consideration, this would probably be better as a void
>> function which used this_cpu() rather than per_cpu().
>>
>> Absolutely nothing good can come of calling it with cpu !=
>> smp_processor_id(), so we should avoid that situation arising in the
>> first place.
> Agreed.
>
>>> +static void psr_cpu_init(unsigned int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> +    psr_assoc_init(cpu);
>>> +}
>> This can also turn into a void helper.
> This is, however, a little different. The next patch will add
> cat_cpu_init() which will make use of this 'cpu' parameter. So do you
> mean calling smp_processor_id() in cat_cpu_init() as well?

Yes - that is probably best.  While cat_cpu_init() doesn't actually
interact with any MSRs, we still never want to be in a position to
execute it against the "wrong" cpu.

~Andrew