From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932809AbcIMWyl (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:54:41 -0400
Received: from mga04.intel.com ([192.55.52.120]:34549 "EHLO mga04.intel.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S932243AbcIMWyk (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 13 Sep 2016 18:54:40 -0400
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,330,1470726000"; 
   d="scan'208";a="8450869"
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 22/33] x86/intel_rdt.c: Extend RDT to per cache and per
 resources
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>, Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>
References: <1473328647-33116-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
 <1473328647-33116-23-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Message-ID: <57D883AE.7070605@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:54:38 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1473328647-33116-23-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On 09/08/2016 02:57 AM, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> +static int __init rdt_setup(char *str)
> +{
> +	char *tok;
> +
> +	while ((tok = strsep(&str, ",")) != NULL) {
> +		if (!*tok)
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +
> +		if (strcmp(tok, "simulate_cat_l3") == 0) {
> +			pr_info("Simulate CAT L3\n");
> +			rdt_opts.simulate_cat_l3 = true;
> +		} else if (strcmp(tok, "disable_cat_l3") == 0) {
> +			pr_info("CAT L3 is disabled\n");
> +			disable_cat_l3 = true;
> +		} else {
> +			pr_info("Invalid rdt option\n");
> +			return -EINVAL;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;
> +}
> +__setup("resctrl=", rdt_setup);

So, this allows you to specify both simulation and disabling at the same
time, and in the same option?  That seems a bit screwy, plus it requires
some parsing which is quite prone to being broken.  How about just
having two setup options:

__setup("resctrl=simulate_cat_l3", rdt_setup...);
__setup("resctrl=disable_cat_l3", rdt_setup...);

And allow folks to specify "resctrl" more than once instead of requiring
the comma-separated arguments?  Then you don't have to do any parsing at
all and your __setup() handlers become one-liners.

Is "resctrl" really the best name for this sucker?  Wouldn't
"intel-rdt=" or something be nicer?

Also, a lot of __setup() functions actually clear cpuid bits.  Should
this be clearing X86_FEATURE_CAT_L3 instead of keeping a boolean around
that effectively overrides it?

> +static inline bool cat_l3_supported(struct cpuinfo_x86 *c)
> +{
> +	if (cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_CAT_L3))
> +		return true;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Probe for Haswell server CPUs.
> +	 */
> +	if (c->x86 == 0x6 && c->x86_model == 0x3f)
> +		return cache_alloc_hsw_probe();
> +
> +	return false;
> +}

#include <asm/intel-family.h> and s/0x3f/INTEL_FAM6_HASWELL_X/, please.
 Then your comment even go away.