From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To: Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>
Cc: wei.liu2@citrix.com, he.chen@linux.intel.com,
andrew.cooper3@citrix.com, dario.faggioli@citrix.com,
ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com, mengxu@cis.upenn.edu,
jbeulich@suse.com, chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com,
xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND v5 04/24] x86: refactor psr: implement CPU init and free flow.
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2017 21:44:00 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170131024400.GA9186@char.us.ORACLE.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1484805686-7249-5-git-send-email-yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>
On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 02:01:06PM +0800, Yi Sun wrote:
> This patch implements the CPU init and free flow including L3 CAT
> initialization and feature list free.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> v5:
> - modify commit message beacuse of code changes.
> - add 'struct cpuid_leaf_regs' to save cpu registers value to reduce
> parameters of init_feature function.
> - modify comments to make them accurate.
> - modify variables names to make them better, e.g. 'feat_tmp' to 'feat'.
> - use 'list_for_each_entry_safe' when free features.
> - do not delete 'feat_l3_cat' to make it can be reused when cpu online.
> - use 'current_cpu_data'.
> - clear 'X86_FEATURE_PQE' if cpuid_level is not right.
> - Print socket info when 'opt_cpu_info' is true.
> - remove 'cpu_prepare_work' function and move contents of it into
> 'psr_cpu_prepare'.
> ---
> xen/arch/x86/psr.c | 176 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 174 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> index f7ff3fc..e9dc07a 100644
> --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c
> @@ -35,6 +35,9 @@
> #define PSR_CAT (1<<1)
> #define PSR_CDP (1<<2)
>
> +#define CAT_CBM_LEN_MASK 0x1f
> +#define CAT_COS_MAX_MASK 0xffff
> +
> /*
> * Per SDM chapter 'Cache Allocation Technology: Cache Mask Configuration',
> * the MSRs range from 0C90H through 0D0FH (inclusive), enables support for
> @@ -127,6 +130,13 @@ struct feat_node {
> struct list_head list;
> };
>
> +struct cpuid_leaf_regs {
> + unsigned int eax;
> + unsigned int ebx;
> + unsigned int ecx;
> + unsigned int edx;
> +};
Could you use 'struct cpuid_leaf' in x86_emulate.h ?
It would only require "#include <asm/x86_emulate.h>" I believe.
> +
> struct psr_assoc {
> uint64_t val;
> uint64_t cos_mask;
> @@ -134,11 +144,76 @@ struct psr_assoc {
>
> struct psr_cmt *__read_mostly psr_cmt;
>
> +static struct psr_socket_info *__read_mostly socket_info;
> +
> static unsigned int opt_psr;
> static unsigned int __initdata opt_rmid_max = 255;
> +static unsigned int __read_mostly opt_cos_max = MAX_COS_REG_CNT;
> static uint64_t rmid_mask;
> static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct psr_assoc, psr_assoc);
>
> +/*
> + * Declare global feature list entry for every feature to facilitate the
> + * feature list creation. It will be allocated in psr_cpu_prepare() and
> + * inserted into feature list in cpu_init_work().
You may also want to say it is protected by the cpu_add_remove_lock
spinlock.
> + */
> +static struct feat_node *feat_l3_cat;
> +
> +/* Common functions. */
> +static void free_feature(struct psr_socket_info *info)
> +{
> + struct feat_node *feat, *next;
> +
> + if ( !info )
> + return;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(feat, next, &info->feat_list, list)
> + {
> + clear_bit(feat->feature, &info->feat_mask);
Would it make sense to use __clear_bit?
As in you have already a lock (cpu_add_remove_lock) so nobody
can change the feat_mask. Hence thinking there is no need for the
lock operation?
> + list_del(&feat->list);
> + xfree(feat);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/* L3 CAT functions implementation. */
> +static void l3_cat_init_feature(struct cpuid_leaf_regs regs,
> + struct feat_node *feat,
> + struct psr_socket_info *info)
> +{
> + struct psr_cat_hw_info l3_cat;
> + unsigned int socket;
> +
> + /* No valid value so do not enable feature. */
> + if ( !regs.eax || !regs.edx )
> + return;
> +
> + l3_cat.cbm_len = (regs.eax & CAT_CBM_LEN_MASK) + 1;
> + l3_cat.cos_max = min(opt_cos_max, regs.edx & CAT_COS_MAX_MASK);
> +
> + /* cos=0 is reserved as default cbm(all bits within cbm_len are 1). */
> + feat->cos_reg_val[0] = (1ull << l3_cat.cbm_len) - 1;
> +
> + feat->feature = PSR_SOCKET_L3_CAT;
> + __set_bit(PSR_SOCKET_L3_CAT, &info->feat_mask);
Aha! So you do reuse the enum! In which case you really
want to make sure you mention that in 'struct psr_socket_info'
the 'feat_mask' is actually the bit values of enum psr_feat_type.
Also do you want to add an ASSERT before you call the __set_bit:
ASSERT ( !test_bit(PSR_SOCKET_L3_CAT, &info->feat_mask) );
?
> +
> + feat->info.l3_cat_info = l3_cat;
> +
> + info->nr_feat++;
> +
> + /* Add this feature into list. */
> + list_add_tail(&feat->list, &info->feat_list);
> +
> + socket = cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id());
> + if ( opt_cpu_info )
> + printk(XENLOG_INFO
> + "L3 CAT: enabled on socket %u, cos_max:%u, cbm_len:%u\n",
Odd spacing. I would think that the "L3 CAT: .. "
would be on the same column as XENLOG_INFO ?
Or you could flip this logic (if you are worried about the silly
80 characters requirement) around and do:
if ( !opt_cpu_info )
return
And then do the printk on its own line?
> + socket, feat->info.l3_cat_info.cos_max,
> + feat->info.l3_cat_info.cbm_len);
> +}
> +
> +static const struct feat_ops l3_cat_ops = {
> +};
> +
> static void __init parse_psr_bool(char *s, char *value, char *feature,
> unsigned int mask)
> {
> @@ -178,6 +253,9 @@ static void __init parse_psr_param(char *s)
> if ( val_str && !strcmp(s, "rmid_max") )
> opt_rmid_max = simple_strtoul(val_str, NULL, 0);
>
> + if ( val_str && !strcmp(s, "cos_max") )
> + opt_cos_max = simple_strtoul(val_str, NULL, 0);
> +
> s = ss + 1;
> } while ( ss );
> }
> @@ -333,18 +411,108 @@ void psr_domain_free(struct domain *d)
> psr_free_rmid(d);
> }
>
> +static void cpu_init_work(void)
> +{
> + struct psr_socket_info *info;
> + unsigned int socket;
> + unsigned int cpu = smp_processor_id();
> + struct feat_node *feat;
> + struct cpuid_leaf_regs regs;
Could you use the x86_emulate.h one?
Would it also make sense to make sure that you initialize
to default values:
struct cpuid_leaf regs = { .a = 0, .b = 0, .c = 0, .d = 0 };
> +
> + if ( !cpu_has(¤t_cpu_data, X86_FEATURE_PQE) )
> + return;
> + else if ( current_cpu_data.cpuid_level < PSR_CPUID_LEVEL_CAT )
> + {
> + clear_bit(X86_FEATURE_PQE, current_cpu_data.x86_capability);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + socket = cpu_to_socket(cpu);
> + info = socket_info + socket;
> + if ( info->feat_mask )
> + return;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&info->feat_list);
> + spin_lock_init(&info->ref_lock);
> +
> + cpuid_count(PSR_CPUID_LEVEL_CAT, 0,
> + ®s.eax, ®s.ebx, ®s.ecx, ®s.edx);
> + if ( regs.ebx & PSR_RESOURCE_TYPE_L3 )
> + {
> + cpuid_count(PSR_CPUID_LEVEL_CAT, 1,
> + ®s.eax, ®s.ebx, ®s.ecx, ®s.edx);
> +
> + feat = feat_l3_cat;
> + feat_l3_cat = NULL;
.. so how does this work when this is initialized on a third
socket? Won't feat_l3_cat at that point be NULL leading to this
one below becoming a NULL pointer?
Ah wait. psr_cpu_prepare will allocate it.
Hm, could you add a comment about this?
/* psr_cpu_prepare will allocate it on subsequent CPU onlining. */
> + feat->ops = l3_cat_ops;
> +
> + l3_cat_init_feature(regs, feat, info);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void cpu_fini_work(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + unsigned int socket = cpu_to_socket(cpu);
> +
> + if ( !socket_cpumask[socket] || cpumask_empty(socket_cpumask[socket]) )
> + {
> + free_feature(socket_info + socket);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void __init init_psr(void)
> +{
> + if ( opt_cos_max < 1 )
> + {
> + printk(XENLOG_INFO "CAT: disabled, cos_max is too small\n");
> + return;
> + }
> +
> + socket_info = xzalloc_array(struct psr_socket_info, nr_sockets);
> +
> + if ( !socket_info )
> + {
> + printk(XENLOG_INFO "Fail to alloc socket_info!\n");
Failed
> + return;
> + }
> +}
> +
> +static void __init psr_free(void)
> +{
> + unsigned int i;
> +
> + for ( i = 0; i < nr_sockets; i++ )
> + free_feature(&socket_info[i]);
> +
> + xfree(socket_info);
> + socket_info = NULL;
> +}
> +
> static int psr_cpu_prepare(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> + if ( !socket_info )
> + return 0;
> +
> + /* Malloc memory for the global feature head here. */
> + if ( feat_l3_cat == NULL &&
> + (feat_l3_cat = xzalloc(struct feat_node)) == NULL )
/me scratches his head.
Lets say we have a two socket machine. Each socket has
two CPUs (so total of 4 CPUs).
On CPU0 (in psr_presmp_init) it allocates feat_l3_cat. Then
later in (in psr_presmp_init) you call psr_cpu_init which
sets feat_l3_cat to NULL (and 'feat' is feat_l3_cat).
When CPU1 starts up then, psr_cpu_prepare is called
which means we allocate a new feat_l3_cat. 'cpu_init_work'
short-circuits (as info->feat_mask has a value) and does not
do anything.
When CPU2 (socket two), starts up then feat_l3_cat (as 'feat')
is used (in psr_cpu_init and again sets feat_l3_cat to NULL).
The last CPU3 (socket #2) starts up, and since feat_l3_cat is
NULL - it is allocated. But in 'cpu_init_work' it short-circuits
so we don't use third allocated 'feat_l3_cat' .
And we have an 'feat_l3_cat' that is not used for anything..
In other words - a memory leak. Granted a very small one.
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> return 0;
> }
>
> static void psr_cpu_init(void)
> {
> + if ( socket_info )
> + cpu_init_work();
> +
> psr_assoc_init();
> }
>
> static void psr_cpu_fini(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> + if ( socket_info )
> + cpu_fini_work(cpu);
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -386,10 +554,14 @@ static int __init psr_presmp_init(void)
> if ( (opt_psr & PSR_CMT) && opt_rmid_max )
> init_psr_cmt(opt_rmid_max);
>
> - psr_cpu_prepare(0);
> + if ( opt_psr & PSR_CAT )
> + init_psr();
> +
> + if ( psr_cpu_prepare(0) )
> + psr_free();
>
> psr_cpu_init();
> - if ( psr_cmt_enabled() )
> + if ( psr_cmt_enabled() || socket_info )
> register_cpu_notifier(&cpu_nfb);
>
> return 0;
> --
> 1.9.1
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-01-31 2:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 55+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-19 6:01 [PATCH RESEND v5 00/24] Enable L2 Cache Allocation Technology & Refactor psr.c Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 01/24] docs: create L2 Cache Allocation Technology (CAT) feature document Yi Sun
2017-01-20 9:39 ` Tian, Kevin
2017-01-22 2:15 ` Yi Sun
2017-02-08 6:45 ` Tian, Kevin
2017-01-30 18:10 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-30 20:39 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-04 7:24 ` Yi Sun
2017-02-04 7:06 ` Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 02/24] x86: refactor psr: remove L3 CAT/CDP codes Yi Sun
2017-01-30 22:05 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 03/24] x86: refactor psr: implement main data structures Yi Sun
2017-01-30 22:20 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-31 10:10 ` Jan Beulich
2017-01-31 14:12 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-31 15:07 ` Jan Beulich
2017-01-31 17:32 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-05 1:53 ` Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 04/24] x86: refactor psr: implement CPU init and free flow Yi Sun
2017-01-31 2:44 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [this message]
2017-01-31 10:14 ` Jan Beulich
2017-01-31 14:13 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-31 10:53 ` Andrew Cooper
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 05/24] x86: refactor psr: implement Domain init/free and schedule flows Yi Sun
2017-01-31 19:52 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 06/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get hw info flow Yi Sun
2017-01-31 20:17 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 07/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get value flow Yi Sun
2017-01-31 20:29 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-07 2:47 ` Yi Sun
2017-02-07 13:56 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 08/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement framework Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 09/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: assemble features value array Yi Sun
2017-01-31 20:57 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-07 2:51 ` Yi Sun
2017-02-07 13:57 ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 10/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement cos finding flow Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 11/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement cos id picking flow Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 12/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement write msr flow Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 13/24] x86: refactor psr: implement CPU init and free flow for CDP Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 14/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get hw info " Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 15/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get value " Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 16/24] x86: refactor psr: implement set value callback functions " Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 17/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement CPU init and free flow Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 18/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement get hw info flow Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 19/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement get value flow Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 20/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement set " Yi Sun
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 21/24] tools: L2 CAT: support get HW info for L2 CAT Yi Sun
2017-01-27 15:18 ` Wei Liu
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 22/24] tools: L2 CAT: support show cbm " Yi Sun
2017-01-27 15:18 ` Wei Liu
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 23/24] tools: L2 CAT: support set " Yi Sun
2017-01-27 15:18 ` Wei Liu
2017-01-19 6:01 ` [PATCH RESEND v5 24/24] docs: add L2 CAT description in docs Yi Sun
2017-01-27 15:18 ` Wei Liu
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=20170131024400.GA9186@char.us.ORACLE.com \
--to=konrad.wilk@oracle.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dario.faggioli@citrix.com \
--cc=he.chen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=mengxu@cis.upenn.edu \
--cc=wei.liu2@citrix.com \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
--cc=yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).