From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: jeremy.linton@arm.com (Jeremy Linton)
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2016 15:44:06 -0600
Subject: [PATCH V10 4/6] arm: arm64: pmu: Assign platform PMU CPU affinity
In-Reply-To: <20161129105255.GD30283@arm.com>
References: <1478734793-6341-1-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <1478734793-6341-5-git-send-email-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20161129105255.GD30283@arm.com>
Message-ID: <8e7fc0d1-7d09-24a2-42a5-4042eeab7010@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

Hi,

On 11/29/2016 04:52 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2016 at 05:39:51PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
>> On systems with multiple PMU types the PMU to CPU affinity
>> needs to be detected and set. The CPU to interrupt affinity
>> should also be set.
>>

(trimming)

>> +static int probe_plat_pmu(struct arm_pmu *pmu,
>> +			     const struct pmu_probe_info *info,
>> +			     unsigned int pmuid)
>>  {
>> -	int cpu = get_cpu();
>> -	unsigned int cpuid = read_cpuid_id();
>>  	int ret = -ENODEV;
>> +	int cpu;
>> +	int aff_ctr = 0;
>> +	static int duplicate_pmus;
>> +	struct platform_device *pdev = pmu->plat_device;
>> +	int irq = platform_get_irq(pdev, 0);
>>
>> -	pr_info("probing PMU on CPU %d\n", cpu);
>> +	if (irq >= 0 && !irq_is_percpu(irq)) {
>> +		pmu->irq_affinity = kcalloc(pdev->num_resources, sizeof(int),
>> +					    GFP_KERNEL);
>> +		if (!pmu->irq_affinity)
>> +			return -ENOMEM;
>> +	}
>>
>> +	for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> +		unsigned int cpuid = read_specific_cpuid(cpu);
>> +
>> +		if (cpuid == pmuid) {
>> +			cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &pmu->supported_cpus);
>> +			if (pmu->irq_affinity) {
>> +				pmu->irq_affinity[aff_ctr] = cpu;
>> +				aff_ctr++;
>> +			}
>> +		}
>> +	}
>> +
>> +	/* find the type of PMU given the CPU */
>>  	for (; info->init != NULL; info++) {
>> -		if ((cpuid & info->mask) != info->cpuid)
>> +		if ((pmuid & info->mask) != info->cpuid)
>>  			continue;
>>  		ret = info->init(pmu);
>> +		/*
>> +		 * if this pmu declaration is unspecified and we have
>> +		 * previously found a PMU on this platform then append
>> +		 * a PMU number to the pmu name. This avoids changing
>> +		 * the names of PMUs that are specific to a class of CPUs.
>> +		 * The assumption is that if we match a specific PMU in the
>> +		 * provided pmu_probe_info then it's unique, and another PMU
>> +		 * in the system will match a different entry rather than
>> +		 * needing the _number to assure its unique.
>> +		 */
>> +		if ((!info->cpuid) && (duplicate_pmus)) {
>
> This is a bit grim: if you had a PMU with a non-zero info->cpuid, then you
> later found a PMU with a zeroed info->cpuid, the latter would get a
> redundant suffix. This doesn't happen in reality, because the ACPI case
> always has info->cpuid == 0, but if somebody extends armv8_pmu_probe_table
> then we'd get this and probably not realise.

Hoisting the duplicate_pmus inside the !info->cpuid fixes that...

>
> I think the duplicate_pmus counter needs to be tied explicitly to the
> "default type" (i.e. when info->cpuid == 0, but see my next comment).
>
>> +			pmu->name = kasprintf(GFP_KERNEL, "%s_%d",
>> +					    pmu->name, duplicate_pmus);
>> +			if (!pmu->name) {
>> +				kfree(pmu->irq_affinity);
>> +				ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +			}
>> +		}
>
> This code doesn't run for the device-tree probing case, but I think it would
> be useful to do the same numbering trick for e.g. systems with multiple PMUs
> that all end up matching on armv8_pmuv3.

Ok, its pretty straightforward to move the check into 
arm_pmu_device_probe() itself and do a string compare against 
DEFAULT_V8_PMU define rather than !cpuid.

Ok, I will do that and post v11 as soon as I hear from Russell about 
what he wants to do with read_specific_cpuid().