public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, marc.zyngier@arm.com,
	mark.rutland@arm.com, kim.phillips@arm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com, robh@kernel.org,
	suzuki.poulose@arm.com, pawel.moll@arm.com,
	mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, mingo@redhat.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/5] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension
Date: Mon, 22 May 2017 12:05:22 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170522110521.GB1107@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1705212207020.3023@nanos>

Hi Thomas,

Thanks for having a look at the patch. Responses inline.

On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 10:36:19PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 18 May 2017, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +static void __arm_spe_pmu_dev_probe(void *info)
> > +{
> > +	dev_info(dev,
> > +		 "probed for CPUs %*pbl [max_record_sz %u, align %u, features 0x%llx]\n",
> > +		 cpumask_pr_args(&spe_pmu->supported_cpus),
> > +		 spe_pmu->max_record_sz, spe_pmu->align, spe_pmu->features);
> 
> I have a hard time to spot the place which actually sets a CPU in the
> supported_cpus mask. I must be missing something, but that's what grep
> gives me:
> 
> +	cpumask_t				supported_cpus;
> +	return cpumap_print_to_pagebuf(true, buf, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus);
> +	    !cpumask_test_cpu(event->cpu, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus))
> +	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus))
> +		 cpumask_pr_args(&spe_pmu->supported_cpus),
> +	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus))
> +	if (!cpumask_test_cpu(cpu, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus))
> +	cpumask_t *mask = &spe_pmu->supported_cpus;
> +	if (irq_get_percpu_devid_partition(irq, &spe_pmu->supported_cpus)) {

That's the one ^^^. The mask is determined by the affinity of the
interrupt partition.

> +	cpumask_t *mask = &spe_pmu->supported_cpus;
> 
> > +static int arm_spe_pmu_dev_init(struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	cpumask_t *mask = &spe_pmu->supported_cpus;
> > +
> > +	/* Keep the hotplug state steady whilst we probe */
> > +	get_online_cpus();
> > +
> > +	/* Make sure we probe the hardware on a relevant CPU */
> > +	ret = smp_call_function_any(mask,  __arm_spe_pmu_dev_probe, spe_pmu, 1);
> 
> You can release the hotplug lock here again and spare all the goto magic.

Actually, if I rework this to use cpuhp_state_add_instance instead, then
I might be able to do without the hotplug lock altogether. I'll have a
play.

> > +	if (ret || !(spe_pmu->features & SPE_PMU_FEAT_DEV_PROBED)) {
> > +		ret = -ENXIO;
> > +		goto out_put_cpus;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	/* Request our PPIs (note that the IRQ is still disabled) */
> > +	ret = request_percpu_irq(spe_pmu->irq, arm_spe_pmu_irq_handler, DRVNAME,
> > +				 spe_pmu->handle);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out_put_cpus;
> > +
> > +	/* Setup the CPUs in our mask -- this enables the IRQ */
> > +	on_each_cpu_mask(mask, __arm_spe_pmu_setup_one, spe_pmu, 1);
> > +
> > +	/* Register our hotplug notifier now so we don't miss any events */
> > +	ret = cpuhp_state_add_instance_nocalls(arm_spe_pmu_online,
> > +					       &spe_pmu->hotplug_node);
> 
> If you use cpuhp_state_add_instance() then you can spare the
> on_each_cpu_mask(). The downside is that it will invoke the callback on the
> non-supported CPUs as well, but you have protection in the callbacks anyway.

Yes, I think that will work and I can get rid of get_online_cpus around
the probing too.

> > +static int arm_spe_pmu_device_dt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	int ret;
> > +	struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu;
> > +	struct device *dev = &pdev->dev;
> > +
> > +	spe_pmu = devm_kzalloc(dev, sizeof(*spe_pmu), GFP_KERNEL);
> > +	if (!spe_pmu) {
> > +		dev_err(dev, "failed to allocate spe_pmu\n");
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	spe_pmu->handle = alloc_percpu(typeof(*spe_pmu->handle));
> > +	if (!spe_pmu->handle)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > +	spe_pmu->pdev = pdev;
> > +	platform_set_drvdata(pdev, spe_pmu);
> > +
> > +	ret = arm_spe_pmu_irq_probe(spe_pmu);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out_free_handle;
> > +
> > +	ret = arm_spe_pmu_dev_init(spe_pmu);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out_free_handle;
> > +
> > +	ret = arm_spe_pmu_perf_init(spe_pmu);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		goto out_free_handle;
> 
> If that fails you leak the cpu hotplug instance. It's still enqueued.

Yikes, well spotted. That will then get called with the freed spe_pmu,
which will probably end badly.

> > +static int arm_spe_pmu_device_remove(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > +{
> > +	struct arm_spe_pmu *spe_pmu = platform_get_drvdata(pdev);
> > +	cpumask_t *mask = &spe_pmu->supported_cpus;
> > +
> > +	arm_spe_pmu_perf_destroy(spe_pmu);
> > +
> > +	get_online_cpus();
> > +	cpuhp_state_remove_instance_nocalls(arm_spe_pmu_online,
> > +					    &spe_pmu->hotplug_node);
> > +	on_each_cpu_mask(mask, __arm_spe_pmu_stop_one, spe_pmu, 1);
> 
> 
> You can spare that dance and just use cpuhp_state_remove_instance().

Thanks, I'll fix this too.

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-22 11:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-18 17:24 [PATCH v3 0/5] Add support for the ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:24 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] genirq: export irq_get_percpu_devid_partition to modules Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:24 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] perf/core: Export AUX buffer helpers " Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:24 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] perf/core: Add PERF_AUX_FLAG_COLLISION to report colliding samples Will Deacon
2017-05-18 17:24 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] drivers/perf: Add support for ARMv8.2 Statistical Profiling Extension Will Deacon
2017-05-21 20:36   ` Thomas Gleixner
2017-05-22 11:05     ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-05-22 12:32   ` Kim Phillips
2017-05-22 12:44     ` Mark Rutland
2017-05-22 15:45       ` Kim Phillips
2017-05-22 16:22         ` Mark Rutland
2017-05-22 23:24           ` Kim Phillips
2017-05-18 17:24 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] dt-bindings: Document devicetree binding for ARM SPE Will Deacon

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=20170522110521.GB1107@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@arm.com \
    --cc=alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=kim.phillips@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=mathieu.poirier@linaro.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=pawel.moll@arm.com \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=robh@kernel.org \
    --cc=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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