xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>
To: Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>
Cc: kevin.tian@intel.com, 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 v6 04/24] x86: refactor psr: implement CPU init and free flow.
Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 11:34:16 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170208163415.GB30224@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1486541776-8406-5-git-send-email-yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>

.snip..
> +static void free_feature(struct psr_socket_info *info)
> +{
> +    struct feat_node *feat, *next;
> +
> +    if ( !info )
> +        return;
> +
> +    /*
> +     * Free resources of features. But we do not free global feature list
> +     * entry, like feat_l3_cat. Although it may cause a few memory leak,
> +     * it is OK simplify things.

it is OK as it simplifies things.
> +     */
> +    list_for_each_entry_safe(feat, next, &info->feat_list, list)
> +    {
> +        __clear_bit(feat->feature, &info->feat_mask);
> +        list_del(&feat->list);
> +        xfree(feat);
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +/* L3 CAT functions implementation. */
> +static void l3_cat_init_feature(struct cpuid_leaf regs,
> +                                struct feat_node *feat,
> +                                struct psr_socket_info *info)
> +{
> +    struct psr_cat_hw_info l3_cat;

Having experienced a few times myself forgetting to set
_all_ the entries a structure allocated on the stack and then
debugging for hours - perhaps you could do:

l3_cat = { };

Which forces the compiler to initialize _all_ the values to zero.
> +    unsigned int socket;
> +
> +    /* No valid value so do not enable feature. */
> +    if ( !regs.a || !regs.b )

You use regs.d below. Would it make sense to check for that value as
well?

Or is a value of 0 for cox_max OK? I would think so, but not exactly
sure.

> +        return;
> +
> +    l3_cat.cbm_len = (regs.a & CAT_CBM_LEN_MASK) + 1;
> +    l3_cat.cos_max = min(opt_cos_max, regs.d & 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;
> +    ASSERT(!test_bit(PSR_SOCKET_L3_CAT, &info->feat_mask));
> +    __set_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 )
> +        return;
> +
> +    printk(XENLOG_INFO "L3 CAT: enabled on socket %u, cos_max:%u, cbm_len:%u\n",
> +           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)
>  {
> @@ -180,6 +257,9 @@ 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 );
>  }
> @@ -335,18 +415,107 @@ 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 = {.a = 0, .b = 0, .c = 0, .d = 0};
> +
> +    if ( !cpu_has(&current_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_leaf(PSR_CPUID_LEVEL_CAT, 0, &regs);
> +    if ( regs.b & PSR_RESOURCE_TYPE_L3 )
> +    {
> +        cpuid_count_leaf(PSR_CPUID_LEVEL_CAT, 1, &regs);
> +
> +        feat = feat_l3_cat;
> +        /* psr_cpu_prepare will allocate it on subsequent CPU onlining. */
> +        feat_l3_cat = NULL;
> +        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]) )

I fear I don't understand this.

Looking at 65a399ac it says:

+    .notifier_call = cpu_callback,
+    /*
+     * Ensure socket_cpumask is still valid in CPU_DEAD notification
+     * (E.g. our CPU_DEAD notification should be called ahead of
+     * cpu_smpboot_free).

Which means that socket_cpumask[socket] should have an value.

In fact cpumask_any(socket_cpumask[socket]) will return true at this
point.

Which means that code above gets called if this psr_cpu_fini is called
_after_ cpu_smpboot_free (b/c socket_cpumask[socket] will be NULL), see
cpu_smpboot_free.

But with .priority being -1 that won't happen.

But lets ignore that, lets say it does get called _after_
cpu_smpboot_free. In which case the first part of the 'if' condition
is true and we end up doing: cpumask_empty(NULL) which will result
in an page fault.

I think this is a bug.

Perhaps it should just be:

  /* .priority is = -1 and we MUST run before cpu_smpboot_free. */
  ASSERT(socket_cpumask[socket] && cpumask_any(socket_cpumask[socket]));

But since that is only compiled on debug=y it may be better to just
change that ASSERT to an 'if' with the 'else' hitting an ASSERT(1)? 

Like so:

if ( socket_cpumask[socket] && cpumask_any(socket_cpumask[socket] )
	free_feature(socket_info + socket);
else
	ASSERT(0);

?

But maybe I am reading the code wrong?

> +    {
> +        free_feature(socket_info + socket);
> +    }
> +}
> +
> +static void __init init_psr(void)

Why don't we make this return an value? And then the init
code(psr_presmp_init) can just return an error?


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-08 16:34 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-02-08  8:15 [PATCH v6 00/24] Enable L2 Cache Allocation Technology & Refactor psr.c Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:15 ` [PATCH v6 01/24] docs: create Cache Allocation Technology (CAT) and Code and Data Prioritization (CDP) feature document Yi Sun
2017-02-08 15:56   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-09  6:38     ` Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:15 ` [PATCH v6 02/24] x86: refactor psr: remove L3 CAT/CDP codes Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:15 ` [PATCH v6 03/24] x86: refactor psr: implement main data structures Yi Sun
2017-02-08 16:02   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-09 11:05   ` Wei Liu
2017-02-08  8:15 ` [PATCH v6 04/24] x86: refactor psr: implement CPU init and free flow Yi Sun
2017-02-08 16:34   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk [this message]
2017-02-08 19:03     ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-09 11:10       ` Yi Sun
2017-02-09 11:00     ` Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:15 ` [PATCH v6 05/24] x86: refactor psr: implement Domain init/free and schedule flows Yi Sun
2017-02-08 16:43   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-08  8:15 ` [PATCH v6 06/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get hw info flow Yi Sun
2017-02-10 21:34   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-08  8:15 ` [PATCH v6 07/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get value flow Yi Sun
2017-02-09 11:05   ` Wei Liu
2017-02-10 21:38   ` Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 08/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement framework Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 09/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: assemble features value array Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 10/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement cos finding flow Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 11/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement cos id picking flow Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 12/24] x86: refactor psr: set value: implement write msr flow Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 13/24] x86: refactor psr: implement CPU init and free flow for CDP Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 14/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get hw info " Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 15/24] x86: refactor psr: implement get value " Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 16/24] x86: refactor psr: implement set value callback functions " Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 17/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement CPU init and free flow Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 18/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement get hw info flow Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 19/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement get value flow Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 20/24] x86: L2 CAT: implement set " Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 21/24] tools: L2 CAT: support get HW info for L2 CAT Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 22/24] tools: L2 CAT: support show cbm " Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 23/24] tools: L2 CAT: support set " Yi Sun
2017-02-08  8:16 ` [PATCH v6 24/24] docs: add L2 CAT description in docs Yi Sun

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=20170208163415.GB30224@localhost.localdomain \
    --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=kevin.tian@intel.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).