Re: [PATCH v6 3/4] drivers/perf: add DesignWare PCIe PMU driver

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>]

...


> >>> +
> >>> +static int dwc_pcie_pmu_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu, struct hlist_node *cpuhp_node)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	struct dwc_pcie_pmu *pcie_pmu;
> >>> +	struct pci_dev *pdev;
> >>> +	int node;
> >>> +
> >>> +	pcie_pmu = hlist_entry_safe(cpuhp_node, struct dwc_pcie_pmu, cpuhp_node);
> >>> +	pdev = pcie_pmu->pdev;
> >>> +	node = dev_to_node(&pdev->dev);
> >>> +
> >>> +	if (node != NUMA_NO_NODE && cpu_to_node(pcie_pmu->oncpu) != node &&  
> > 
> > Perhaps worth a comment on when you might see node == NUMA_NO_NODE?
> > Beyond NUMA being entirely disabled, I'd hope that never happens and for that you
> > might be able to use a compile time check.
> > 
> > I wonder if this can be simplified by a flag that says if we are already in the
> > right node? Might be easier to follow than having similar dance in online and offline
> > to figure that out.  
> 
> Ok, I will add a comment for NUMA_NO_NODE. If no numa support, I think
> any CPU is fine to bind.

Agreed. I would add a comment on that being the intent.

> 
> pcie_pmu->on_cpu may be a good choise to be used as a flag, right? pcie_pmu->on_cpu
> will be set as -1 when pcie_pmu is allocated and then check in
> dwc_pcie_pmu_online_cpu() first.

I think you still want to know whether it's in the right node - as maybe
there are no local CPUs available at startup.

> 
> Then, the code will be:
> 
> static int dwc_pcie_pmu_online_cpu(unsigned int cpu, struct hlist_node *cpuhp_node)
> {
> 	struct dwc_pcie_pmu *pcie_pmu;
> 	struct pci_dev *pdev;
> 	int node;
> 
> 	pcie_pmu = hlist_entry_safe(cpuhp_node, struct dwc_pcie_pmu, cpuhp_node);
> 	/* If another CPU is already managing this PMU, simply return. */
> 	if (pcie_pmu->on_cpu != -1)
> 		return 0;
> 
> 	pdev = pcie_pmu->pdev;
> 	node = dev_to_node(&pdev->dev);
> 
> 	/* Select the first CPU if no numa support. */
> 	if (node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> 		pcie_pmu->on_cpu = cpu;
> 	else if (cpu_to_node(pcie_pmu->on_cpu) != node &&
> 		 cpu_to_node(cpu) == node)
> 		dwc_pcie_pmu_migrate(pcie_pmu, cpu);
> 
> 	return 0;
> }
> > 
> >>> +static int __init dwc_pcie_pmu_init(void)
> >>> +{
> >>> +	int ret;
> >>> +
> >>> +	ret = cpuhp_setup_state_multi(CPUHP_AP_ONLINE_DYN,
> >>> +				      "perf/dwc_pcie_pmu:online",
> >>> +				      dwc_pcie_pmu_online_cpu,
> >>> +				      dwc_pcie_pmu_offline_cpu);
> >>> +	if (ret < 0)
> >>> +		return ret;
> >>> +
> >>> +	dwc_pcie_pmu_hp_state = ret;
> >>> +
> >>> +	ret = platform_driver_register(&dwc_pcie_pmu_driver);
> >>> +	if (ret) {
> >>> +		cpuhp_remove_multi_state(dwc_pcie_pmu_hp_state);
> >>> +		return ret;
> >>> +	}
> >>> +
> >>> +	dwc_pcie_pmu_dev = platform_device_register_simple(
> >>> +				"dwc_pcie_pmu", PLATFORM_DEVID_NONE, NULL, 0);
> >>> +	if (IS_ERR(dwc_pcie_pmu_dev)) {
> >>> +		platform_driver_unregister(&dwc_pcie_pmu_driver);    
> >>
> >> On failure we also need to remove cpuhp state as well.  
> > 
> > I'd suggest using gotos and a single error handling block. That
> > makes it both harder to forget things like this and easier to
> > compare that block with what happens in exit() - so slightly 
> > easier to review!  
> 
> Given that we have a appropriate way to tear down the PMUs via devm_add_action_or_reset(),
> I am going to remove the redundant probe/remove framework via platform_driver_{un}register().
> for_each probe process in __dwc_pcie_pmu_probe() will be move into dwc_pcie_pmu_init().
> Is it a better way?

I think I'd prefer to see a standard driver creation / probe flow even if you could in theory
avoid it.

Jonathan

> 
> Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
> 
> Best Regards,
> Shuai
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel