From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
Cc: Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@linux.microsoft.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@microsoft.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org
Subject: Re: [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status debug attributes
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 05:02:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y76JGj0cJpYr6/rv@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y72zVXYLVHXuyK05@intel.com>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:49:57PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > wrapping at runtime.
> > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead. The
> > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> >
> > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
>
> I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> But anyways,
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> >
> > /**
> > * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > - debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > - &vgpu_status_fops);
> > + debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > + &vgpu_status_fops);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@linux.microsoft.com>,
intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org,
Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@microsoft.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org,
Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status debug attributes
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 05:02:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y76JGj0cJpYr6/rv@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y72zVXYLVHXuyK05@intel.com>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:49:57PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > wrapping at runtime.
> > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead. The
> > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> >
> > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
>
> I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> But anyways,
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> >
> > /**
> > * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > - debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > - &vgpu_status_fops);
> > + debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > + &vgpu_status_fops);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
> >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
To: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
Cc: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin@linux.intel.com>,
Saurabh Singh Sengar <ssengar@microsoft.com>,
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
Praveen Kumar <kumarpraveen@linux.microsoft.com>,
<intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org>,
<intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Zhi Wang <zhi.a.wang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status debug attributes
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 05:02:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y76JGj0cJpYr6/rv@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Y72zVXYLVHXuyK05@intel.com>
On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:49:57PM -0500, Rodrigo Vivi wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 12:00:12AM +0530, Deepak R Varma wrote:
> > Using DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE macro with the debugfs_create_file()
> > function adds the overhead of introducing a proxy file operation
> > functions to wrap the original read/write inside file removal protection
> > functions. This adds significant overhead in terms of introducing and
> > managing the proxy factory file operations structure and function
> > wrapping at runtime.
> > As a replacement, a combination of DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE macro paired
> > with debugfs_create_file_unsafe() is suggested to be used instead. The
> > DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE utilises debugfs_file_get() and
> > debugfs_file_put() wrappers to protect the original read and write
> > function calls for the debug attributes. There is no need for any
> > runtime proxy file operations to be managed by the debugfs core.
> > Following coccicheck make command helped identify this change:
> >
> > make coccicheck M=drivers/gpu/drm/i915/ MODE=patch COCCI=./scripts/coccinelle/api/debugfs/debugfs_simple_attr.cocci
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Deepak R Varma <drv@mailo.com>
>
> I believe these 2 gvt cases could be done in one patch.
> But anyways,
>
> Reviewed-by: Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi@intel.com>
>
> for both patches... and will leave these 2 patches for gvt folks
> to apply. Unless they ack and I apply in the drm-intel along with the other ones.
Actually, could you please address the checkpatch issues before we can push?
Sorry about that, but just noticed now when I was going to push the other ones.
>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c | 6 +++---
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > index 03f081c3d9a4..baccbf1761b7 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gvt/debugfs.c
> > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static int vgpu_status_get(void *data, u64 *val)
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > -DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> > +DEFINE_DEBUGFS_ATTRIBUTE(vgpu_status_fops, vgpu_status_get, NULL, "0x%llx\n");
> >
> > /**
> > * intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu - register debugfs entries for a vGPU
> > @@ -182,8 +182,8 @@ void intel_gvt_debugfs_add_vgpu(struct intel_vgpu *vgpu)
> > &vgpu_mmio_diff_fops);
> > debugfs_create_file_unsafe("scan_nonprivbb", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > &vgpu_scan_nonprivbb_fops);
> > - debugfs_create_file("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > - &vgpu_status_fops);
> > + debugfs_create_file_unsafe("status", 0644, vgpu->debugfs, vgpu,
> > + &vgpu_status_fops);
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-11 10:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-10 18:29 [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 0/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops debug attributes Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:29 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:29 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:29 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 1/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for scan_nonprivbb " Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:29 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:29 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:30 ` [Intel-gfx] [PATCH 2/2] drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops for vgpu_status " Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:30 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:30 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-10 18:49 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-10 18:49 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-10 18:49 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 10:02 ` Rodrigo Vivi [this message]
2023-01-11 10:02 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 10:02 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 14:53 ` [Intel-gfx] " Deepak R Varma
2023-01-11 14:53 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-11 14:53 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-11 15:00 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 15:00 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 15:00 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 15:16 ` [Intel-gfx] " Deepak R Varma
2023-01-11 15:16 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-11 15:16 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-11 15:24 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 15:24 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-11 15:24 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-16 5:44 ` [Intel-gfx] " Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-16 5:44 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-16 5:44 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-17 19:29 ` [Intel-gfx] " Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-17 19:29 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-17 19:29 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-18 4:48 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-18 4:48 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-18 4:48 ` Deepak R Varma
2023-01-18 16:44 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-18 16:44 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-18 16:44 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-19 1:26 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-19 1:26 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-19 1:26 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-19 22:05 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-19 22:05 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-19 22:05 ` Rodrigo Vivi
2023-01-20 2:20 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-20 2:20 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-20 2:20 ` Zhenyu Wang
2023-01-10 21:54 ` [Intel-gfx] ✗ Fi.CI.CHECKPATCH: warning for drm/i915/gvt: Avoid full proxy f_ops " Patchwork
2023-01-10 22:22 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.BAT: success " Patchwork
2023-01-11 8:09 ` [Intel-gfx] ✓ Fi.CI.IGT: " Patchwork
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=Y76JGj0cJpYr6/rv@intel.com \
--to=rodrigo.vivi@intel.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=drv@mailo.com \
--cc=intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=intel-gvt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=kumarpraveen@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ssengar@microsoft.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.