Re: [RFC PATCH 12/23] thermal: intel: hfi: Convert table_lock to use flags-handling variants

Ricardo Neri
2022-10-26T03:52:32Z

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:36:53PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 01:34:07PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 09, 2022 at 04:11:54PM -0700, Ricardo Neri wrote:
> >
> > > --- a/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_hfi.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/intel/intel_hfi.c
> > > @@ -175,9 +175,10 @@ static struct workqueue_struct *hfi_updates_wq;
> > > static void get_hfi_caps(struct hfi_instance *hfi_instance,
> > > struct thermal_genl_cpu_caps *cpu_caps)
> > > {
> > > + unsigned long flags;
> > > int cpu, i = 0;
> > >
> > > - raw_spin_lock_irq(&hfi_instance->table_lock);
> > > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&hfi_instance->table_lock, flags);
> > > for_each_cpu(cpu, hfi_instance->cpus) {
> > > struct hfi_cpu_data *caps;
> > > s16 index;
> >
> > ^^^^ Anti-pattern alert!
> >
> > Now your IRQ latency depends on nr_cpus -- which is a fair fail. The
> > existing code is already pretty crap in that it has the preemption
> > latency depend on nr_cpus.
> >
> > While I'm here looking at the HFI stuff, did they fix that HFI interrupt
> > broadcast mess already? Sending an interrupt to *all* CPUs is quite
> > insane.
>
> Anyway; given the existence of this here loop; why not have something
> like:
>
> DEFINE_PER_CPU(int, hfi_ipc_class);
>
> class = // extract from HFI mess
> WRITE_ONCE(per_cpu(hfi_ipc_class, cpu), class);
>
> And then have the tick use this_cpu_read(hfi_ipc_class)? No extra
> locking required.

Thanks Peter. I think this is a good solution. I will implement it.

BR,
Ricardo