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 S942752AbcJZNGr (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:06:47 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:40009 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S942605AbcJZNGn (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 26 Oct 2016 09:06:43 -0400
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 15:02:56 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>
cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <h.peter.anvin@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Stephane Eranian <eranian@google.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>,
        Nilay Vaish <nilayvaish@gmail.com>, Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com>,
        David Carrillo-Cisneros <davidcc@google.com>,
        Ravi V Shankar <ravi.v.shankar@intel.com>,
        Sai Prakhya <sai.praneeth.prakhya@intel.com>,
        Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, x86 <x86@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/18] x86/intel_rdt: Build structures for each resource
 based on cache topology
In-Reply-To: <1477142405-32078-11-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1610261451060.4983@nanos>
References: <1477142405-32078-1-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com> <1477142405-32078-11-git-send-email-fenghua.yu@intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Sat, 22 Oct 2016, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> +void rdt_cbm_update(void *arg)
> +{
> +	struct msr_param *m = (struct msr_param *)arg;
> +	struct rdt_resource *r = m->res;
> +	int i, cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +	struct rdt_domain *d;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry(d, &r->domains, list) {

> +static struct rdt_domain *rdt_find_domain(struct rdt_resource *r, int id,
> +					  struct list_head **pos)
> +{
> +	struct rdt_domain *d;
> +	struct list_head *l;
> +
> +	if (id < 0)
> +		return ERR_PTR(id);
> +
> +	list_for_each(l, &r->domains) {
> +		d = list_entry(l, struct rdt_domain, list);

So above you converted to list_for_each_entry(). Is there a sensible
reason, aside of being sloppy, why is this still using list_for_each()?

> +		/* When id is found, return its domain. */
> +		if (id == d->id)
> +			return d;
> +		/* Stop searching when finding id's position in sorted list. */

What is the reason that this needs to be in a sorted list?

I haven't found one so far. And if there is none, then this can use a hlist.

> +		if (id < d->id)
> +			break;
> +	}
> +	/*
> +	 * No id is found in resource domains. Record the position
> +	 * that the new domain will be added. The posistion is not used
> +	 * when removing a domain.

This comment makes no sense. If you want to document that a caller does not
require the @pos argument, then you really should make it optional and do

	if (pos)
		*pos = l;

But before doing that blindly, you want to explain why sorting is required
at all.

> +	 */
> +	*pos = l;
> +
> +	return NULL;
> +}
> +
> +static void domain_add_cpu(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
> +{
> +	int i, id = get_cache_id(cpu, r->cache_level);
> +	struct list_head *add_pos = NULL;
> +	struct rdt_domain *d;
> +
> +	d = rdt_find_domain(r, id, &add_pos);
> +	if (IS_ERR(d)) {
> +		pr_warn("Could't find cache id for cpu %d\n", cpu);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (d) {
> +		cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, &d->cpu_mask);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!add_pos) {
> +		pr_warn("Couldn't add cpu %d in %s domain\n", cpu, r->name);

Errm, how can add_pos ever be NULL if you get here? Not at all AFAICT.

> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	d = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*d), GFP_KERNEL, cpu_to_node(cpu));
> +	if (!d)
> +		return;
> +
> +	d->id = id;

Please move this after the allocation. This random code ordering just makes
reading hard as one expects that d->id is a prerequisite for the
allocation.

> +	d->cbm = kmalloc_array(r->num_closid, sizeof(*d->cbm), GFP_KERNEL);
> +	if (!d->cbm) {
> +		pr_warn("Failed to alloc CBM array for cpu %d\n", cpu);
> +		kfree(d);
> +		return;
> +	}

New line please. Visually seperating logical code blocks enhances
readability.

> +	for (i = 0; i < r->num_closid; i++) {

Thanks,

	tglx