lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 1/7] arm64: add support for the AMU extension v1
From
Date
Hi Ionela,

On 12/02/2020 16:10, Ionela Voinescu wrote:
> Hi Suzuki,
>
> On Wednesday 12 Feb 2020 at 11:30:44 (+0000), Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose wrote:
>>> +static int __init set_disable_amu(char *str)
>>> +{
>>> + int value = 0;
>>> +
>>> + disable_amu = get_option(&str, &value) ? !!value : true;
>>
>> minor nit: You could simply use strtobool(str) here, which accepts:
>>
>> disable_amu= [0/1/on/off/y/n]
>>
>
> Yes, this was intentional as I wanted "disable_amu" to be a valid option
> as well, not only "disable_amu=<option>".
>
> If you don't mind I'd like to keep it like this. Currently the use of

Sure, thats fine.

>>> +
>>> + return 0;
>>> +}
>>> +early_param("disable_amu", set_disable_amu);
>>> +
>>> +static bool has_amu(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap,
>>> + int __unused)
>>> +{
>>> + /*
>>> + * The AMU extension is a non-conflicting feature: the kernel can
>>> + * safely run a mix of CPUs with and without support for the
>>> + * activity monitors extension. Therefore, if not disabled through
>>> + * the kernel command line early parameter, enable the capability
>>> + * to allow any late CPU to use the feature.
>>> + *
>>> + * With this feature enabled, the cpu_enable function will be called
>>> + * for all CPUs that match the criteria, including secondary and
>>> + * hotplugged, marking this feature as present on that respective CPU.
>>> + * The enable function will also print a detection message.
>>> + */
>>> +
>>> + if (!disable_amu && !zalloc_cpumask_var(&amu_cpus, GFP_KERNEL)) {
>>
>> This looks problematic. Don't we end up in allocating the memory during
>> "each CPU" check and thus leaking memory ? Do we really need to allocate
>> this dynamically ?
>>
>
> Yes, it does make some assumptions. Given that the AMU capability is
> a WEAK_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE I relied on the match function being called
> only once, when the return value is true. If the return value is false,

That is not correct. A WEAK_LOCAL_CPU_FEATURE is still SCOPE_LOCAL_CPU,
implies it is run on all the booting CPUs (including the hotplugged
ones). The WEAK is there to imply that its "permitted" or "optional"
for a hotplugged CPU. So, eventually you will re-allocate this variable
every single time a CPU turns up, where you could also loose the current
state.

> which will result in it being called multiple times, it's either because
> disable_amu == false, or it has become false due to a previous failed
> allocation, in which case a new allocation will not be attempted.
>
> For better handling I could have a cpumask_available check before the
> allocation just in case the capability type changes in the future, or to
> at least not rely on assumptions based on the type of the capability.
>
> The reason this is dynamic is that I wanted to avoid the memory being
> allocated when disable_amu is true - as Valentin mentioned in a comment
> in the meantime "the static allocation is done against NR_CPUS whereas
> the dynamic one is done against nr_cpu_ids".
>
> Would this be alright?
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> index 182e05ca3410..4cee6b147ddd 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
> @@ -1222,7 +1222,11 @@ static bool has_amu(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap,
> * The enable function will also print a detection message.
> */
>
> - if (!disable_amu && !zalloc_cpumask_var(&amu_cpus, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> + if (disable_amu)
> + return false;
> +
> + if (!cpumask_available(amu_cpus) &&
> + !zalloc_cpumask_var(&amu_cpus, GFP_KERNEL)) {
> pr_err("Activity Monitors Unit (AMU): fail to allocate memory");
> disable_amu = true;
> }

This looks fine.

Cheers
Suzuki

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-12 17:21    [W:0.141 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site