From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v7 8/9] arm64: pmu: Detect and enable multiple PMUs in an ACPI system
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:30:37 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160901143037.GL6721@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b4d5397f-2ab0-8c19-d36e-ea23edb71bfb@arm.com>
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 05:44:59PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 08/26/2016 10:04 AM, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> (trimming)
> >>+ pmu = kzalloc(sizeof(struct pmu_types), GFP_KERNEL);
> >>+ if (!pmu) {
> >>+ pr_warn("Unable to allocate pmu_types\n");
> >>+ /*
> >>+ * continue to count cpus for any pmu_types
> >>+ * already allocated, but don't allocate any
> >>+ * more pmu_types. This avoids undercounting.
> >>+ */
> >>+ alloc_failure = true;
> >
> >Why not just fail probe and return an error? What is the benefit of
> >having some of the PMUs available?
>
> AFAIC, there isn't a good reason for penalizing PMU's which we can get
> working if a subset of the system PMUs can't be created. But this is per PMU
> type, so with current systems the kzalloc will be called a max of 2 times
> (there is the potential of a 3rd time, due to some other error handling, but
> that doesn't change the argument much). AKA, this doesn't result in "partial
> registration" of a PMU.
... but this will look mighty confusing to userspace, where things will
appear to "half-work", if for some reason the machine makes it that far
at all.
I think we should stick with the KISS approach and just fail the probe
as Punit is suggesting.
Will
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-01 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-08-23 20:47 [PATCH v7 0/9] Enable PMUs in ACPI systems Jeremy Linton
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 1/9] arm64: pmu: add fallback probe table Jeremy Linton
2016-08-26 14:34 ` Punit Agrawal
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 2/9] arm64: pmu: Probe default hw/cache counters Jeremy Linton
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 3/9] arm64: pmu: Hoist pmu platform device name Jeremy Linton
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 4/9] arm64: Rename the common MADT parse routine Jeremy Linton
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 5/9] arm64: pmu: Add support for probing with ACPI Jeremy Linton
2016-08-26 14:42 ` Punit Agrawal
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 6/9] arm: arm64: Add routine to determine cpuid of other cpus Jeremy Linton
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 7/9] arm: arm64: pmu: Assign platform PMU CPU affinity Jeremy Linton
2016-08-26 14:54 ` Punit Agrawal
2016-08-23 20:47 ` [PATCH v7 8/9] arm64: pmu: Detect and enable multiple PMUs in an ACPI system Jeremy Linton
2016-08-26 15:04 ` Punit Agrawal
2016-08-26 22:44 ` Jeremy Linton
2016-08-30 9:43 ` Punit Agrawal
2016-09-01 14:30 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2016-08-23 20:48 ` [PATCH v7 9/9] MAINTAINERS: Tweak ARM PMU maintainers Jeremy Linton
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=20160901143037.GL6721@arm.com \
--to=will.deacon@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).