From: Conor Dooley <conor.dooley@microchip.com>
To: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
Cc: <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Radu Rendec <rrendec@redhat.com>,
Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@rivosinc.com>,
Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] cacheinfo: Check sib_leaf in cache_leaves_are_shared()
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:27:20 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20230412-viewpoint-refutable-a31f3657093c@wendy> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230412071809.12670-2-pierre.gondois@arm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2610 bytes --]
On Wed, Apr 12, 2023 at 09:18:04AM +0200, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> If 'this_leaf' is a L2 cache (or higher) and 'sib_leaf' is a L1 cache,
> the caches are detected as shared. Indeed, cache_leaves_are_shared()
> only checks the cache level of 'this_leaf' when 'sib_leaf''s cache
> level should also be checked.
I have to say, I'm a wee bit confused reading this patch - although it's
likely that I have just confused myself here.
The comment reads "For non DT/ACPI systems, assume unique level 1 caches,
system-wide shared caches for all other levels".
Does this mean all level 1 caches are unique & all level N caches are
shared with all other level N caches, but not with level M caches?
(M != N; M, N > 1)
Is this patches goal to make sure that if this_leaf is level 2 and
sib_leaf is level 1 that these are not detected as shared, since level
one caches are meant to be unique?
The previous logic checked only this_leaf's level, and declared things
shared if this_leaf is not a level 1 cache.
What happens here if this_leaf->level == 1 and sib_leaf->level == 2?
That'll be detected as shared, in a contradiction of the comment above
it, no?
As you never state the actual problem with the current code, I'm not
entirely sure if I am making a fool of myself or not here.
Probably making a fool, that's par for the course ;)
Thanks,
Conor.
>
> Check 'sib_leaf->level'. Also update the comment as the function is
> called when populating 'shared_cpu_map'.
>
> Fixes: f16d1becf96f ("cacheinfo: Use cache identifiers to check if the caches are shared if available")
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 5 ++---
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> index f3903d002819..e7ad6aba5f97 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -38,11 +38,10 @@ static inline bool cache_leaves_are_shared(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
> {
> /*
> * For non DT/ACPI systems, assume unique level 1 caches,
> - * system-wide shared caches for all other levels. This will be used
> - * only if arch specific code has not populated shared_cpu_map
> + * system-wide shared caches for all other levels.
> */
> if (!(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_OF) || IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ACPI)))
> - return !(this_leaf->level == 1);
> + return (this_leaf->level != 1) || (sib_leaf->level != 1);
>
> if ((sib_leaf->attributes & CACHE_ID) &&
> (this_leaf->attributes & CACHE_ID))
> --
> 2.25.1
>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-12 11:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-12 7:18 [PATCH v2 0/3] cacheinfo: Correctly fallback to using clidr_el1's information Pierre Gondois
2023-04-12 7:18 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] cacheinfo: Check sib_leaf in cache_leaves_are_shared() Pierre Gondois
2023-04-12 11:27 ` Conor Dooley [this message]
2023-04-12 12:34 ` Pierre Gondois
2023-04-12 12:47 ` Conor Dooley
2023-04-12 13:20 ` Pierre Gondois
2023-04-12 13:50 ` Conor Dooley
2023-04-12 7:18 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] cacheinfo: Check cache properties are present in DT Pierre Gondois
2023-04-12 7:55 ` Conor Dooley
2023-04-12 8:12 ` Pierre Gondois
2023-04-12 9:38 ` Alexandre Ghiti
2023-04-12 7:18 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] cacheinfo: Add use_arch[|_cache]_info field/function Pierre Gondois
2023-04-12 11:47 ` Conor Dooley
2023-04-12 12:35 ` Pierre Gondois
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=20230412-viewpoint-refutable-a31f3657093c@wendy \
--to=conor.dooley@microchip.com \
--cc=alexghiti@rivosinc.com \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gshan@redhat.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=palmer@rivosinc.com \
--cc=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rrendec@redhat.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=will@kernel.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