Re: [PATCH v6 02/24] x86/resctrl: kfree() rmid_ptrs from rdtgroup_exit()

James Morse
2023-10-25T17:57:13Z

Hi Reinette,

On 05/10/2023 19:04, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> On 10/5/2023 10:05 AM, James Morse wrote:
>> On 02/10/2023 18:00, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 9/14/2023 10:21 AM, James Morse wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>> index 725344048f85..a2158c266e41 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/rdtgroup.c
>>>> @@ -3867,6 +3867,11 @@ int __init rdtgroup_init(void)
>>>>
>>>> void __exit rdtgroup_exit(void)
>>>> {
>>>> + struct rdt_resource *r = &rdt_resources_all[RDT_RESOURCE_L3].r_resctrl;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (r->mon_capable)
>>>> + resctrl_exit_mon_l3_config(r);
>>>> +
>>>> debugfs_remove_recursive(debugfs_resctrl);
>>>> unregister_filesystem(&rdt_fs_type);
>>>> sysfs_remove_mount_point(fs_kobj, "resctrl");
>>>
>>> You did not respond to me when I requested that this be done differently [1].
>>> Without a response letting me know the faults of my proposal or following the
>>> recommendation I conclude that my feedback was ignored.
>>
>> Not so - I just trimmed the bits that didn't need a response. I can respond 'Yes' to each
>> one if you prefer, but I find that adds more noise than signal.
>
> I do not expect a response to every review feedback but no response
> is assumed to mean that you agree with the feedback.
>
>>
>> This is my attempt at 'doing the cleanup properly', which is what you said your preference
>> was. (no machine on the planet can ever run this code, the __exit section is always
>> discarded by the linker).
>>
>> Reading through again, I missed that you wanted this called from resctrl_exit(). (The
>
> Right. And not responding to that created expectation that you agreed with the
> request.
>
>> naming suggests I did this originally, but it didn't work out).
>> I don't think this works as the code in resctrl_exit() remains part of the arch code after
>> the move, but allocating rmid_ptrs[] stays part of the fs code.
>>
>> resctrl_exit() in core.c gets renamed as resctrl_arch_exit(), and rdtgroup_exit() takes on
>> the name resctrl_exit() as its part of the exposed interface.
>
> I expect memory allocation/free to be symmetrical. Doing otherwise
> complicates the code. Having this memory freed in rdtgroup_exit() only
> seems appropriate if it is allocated from rdtgroup_init().
> Neither rmid_ptrs[] nor closid_num_dirty_rmid are allocated in
> rdtgroup_init() so freeing it in rdtgroup_exit() is not appropriate.

It probably makes more sense when you see how things get split up. I was trying to reduce
the churn of adding something in one place, then moving it later.

For now I've added all the functions to make this thing symmetric.

James

> If you are planning to move resctrl_exit() to be arch code then I expect
> resctrl_late_init() to be split with the rmid_ptrs[]/closid_num_dirty_rmid
> allocation moving to fs code. Freeing that memory can follow at that time.