Re: [PATCH v11 05/23] x86: refactor psr: L3 CAT: implement Domain init/free and schedule flows.

[Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com>]

On 17-05-30 07:26:55, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 03.05.17 at 10:44, <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > +static unsigned int get_max_cos_max(const struct psr_socket_info *info)
> > +{
> > +    unsigned int cos_max = 0, i;
> > +
> > +    for ( i = 0; i < PSR_SOCKET_FEAT_NUM; i++ )
> > +    {
> > +        const struct feat_node *feat = info->features[i];
> > +        if ( !feat )
> 
> Blank line between declaration(s) and statement(s) please.
> 
> > +            continue;
> > +
> > +        cos_max = max(feat->cos_max, cos_max);
> 
> And you're likely better off inverting the condition and dropping
> the "continue".
> 
Will modify the above points.

> > +static void psr_assoc_cos(uint64_t *reg, unsigned int cos,
> > +                          uint64_t cos_mask)
> > +{
> > +    *reg = (*reg & ~cos_mask) |
> > +            (((uint64_t)cos << PSR_ASSOC_REG_SHIFT) & cos_mask);
> > +}
> 
> Indirection is normally only needed if a function needs to return
> more than one value. Is there a reason you can't have this one
> return the computed result?
> 
This is inherited from old code. I think it is to avoid indentation issue in
caller below. Anyway, I will modify it according to your comment.

> > @@ -376,6 +412,14 @@ void psr_ctxt_switch_to(struct domain *d)
> >      if ( psr_cmt_enabled() )
> >          psr_assoc_rmid(&reg, d->arch.psr_rmid);
> >  
> > +    /* IDLE domain's 'psr_cos_ids' is NULL so we set default value for it. */
> > +    if ( psra->cos_mask )
> > +        psr_assoc_cos(&reg,
> > +                      d->arch.psr_cos_ids ?
> > +                      d->arch.psr_cos_ids[cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id())] :
> > +                      0,
> 
> While this doesn't really conflict with our coding style, it makes
> reading harder than necessary. Please use either
> 
>     if ( psra->cos_mask )
>         psr_assoc_cos(&reg,
>                       (d->arch.psr_cos_ids ?
>                        d->arch.psr_cos_ids[cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id())] :
>                        0),
> 
> or
> 
>     if ( psra->cos_mask )
>         psr_assoc_cos(&reg,
>                       d->arch.psr_cos_ids
>                       ? d->arch.psr_cos_ids[cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id())]
>                       : 0,
> 
> to allow immediate recognition that it is a single argument's expression
> that spans three lines.
> 
Thank you!

> As to the idle domain aspect - is there a strict need to write a new
> value for the idle domain at all? I.e. can't you just skip the write in
> that case, knowing you'll write a proper value anyway once the
> next non-idle vCPU gets scheduled here? Which then raises the
> question on d->arch.psr_cos_ids being NULL - is that strictly only
> possible for the idle domain, or are there also other cases? This
> determines how the if() condition should be re-written ...
> 
I agree with you that IDLE domain can be skipped. But considering that some
domains' 'psr_cos_ids' may fail to be allocated, we have to set default value
for these domains. So, I think we should keep this but skip IDLE domain in
'psr_ctxt_switch_to' caller.

> > @@ -401,14 +445,37 @@ int psr_set_l3_cbm(struct domain *d, unsigned int socket,
> >      return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > -int psr_domain_init(struct domain *d)
> > +/* Called with domain lock held, no extra lock needed for 'psr_cos_ids' */
> > +static void psr_free_cos(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > +    xfree(d->arch.psr_cos_ids);
> > +    d->arch.psr_cos_ids = NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static int psr_alloc_cos(struct domain *d)
> >  {
> > +    d->arch.psr_cos_ids = xzalloc_array(unsigned int, nr_sockets);
> > +    if ( !d->arch.psr_cos_ids )
> > +        return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> >      return 0;
> >  }
> >  
> > +int psr_domain_init(struct domain *d)
> > +{
> > +    /* Init to success value */
> > +    int ret = 0;
> > +
> > +    if ( psr_alloc_feat_enabled() )
> > +        ret = psr_alloc_cos(d);
> > +
> > +    return ret;
> > +}
> 
> Along the lines of the above - do we really need to fail domain
> creation if we can't alloc psr_cos_ids? Granted there'll be other
> allocation failures, but from an abstract pov this is an optional
> feature, and hence the domain could do fine without.
> 
Ok, will modiy related codes.

> Jan

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