From: Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose <suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
To: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, mark.rutland@arm.com,
maz@kernel.org, sudeep.holla@arm.com, lukasz.luba@arm.com,
valentin.schneider@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
peterz@infradead.org, mingo@redhat.com,
vincent.guittot@linaro.org, viresh.kumar@linaro.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/7] arm64: add support for the AMU extension v1
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 16:20:56 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <133890f7-59bb-63b9-0ca8-2294e3596058@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200212161045.GA7475@arm.com>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-12 16:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-11 18:45 [PATCH v3 0/7] arm64: ARMv8.4 Activity Monitors support Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-11 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 1/7] arm64: add support for the AMU extension v1 Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 11:30 ` Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose
2020-02-12 14:54 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-12 16:10 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 16:20 ` Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose [this message]
2020-02-12 18:20 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 19:24 ` Suzuki K Poulose
2020-02-12 20:19 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 16:24 ` Vladimir Murzin
2020-02-12 18:27 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-11 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 2/7] arm64: trap to EL1 accesses to AMU counters from EL0 Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 11:44 ` Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose
2020-02-12 15:36 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-11 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 3/7] arm64/kvm: disable access to AMU registers from kvm guests Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 15:36 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-12 16:33 ` Suzuki Kuruppassery Poulose
2020-02-11 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 4/7] Documentation: arm64: document support for the AMU extension Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 15:36 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-11 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 5/7] cpufreq: add function to get the hardware max frequency Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 4:14 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-02-13 11:59 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-13 12:59 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-13 15:22 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-11 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 6/7] arm64: use activity monitors for frequency invariance Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 18:59 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-02-13 9:47 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-17 16:59 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-23 18:49 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-11 18:45 ` [PATCH v3 7/7] clocksource/drivers/arm_arch_timer: validate arch_timer_rate Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 9:30 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-12 10:32 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 10:01 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-02-12 10:12 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-12 10:54 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-12 10:55 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-02-12 11:10 ` Marc Zyngier
2020-02-12 11:43 ` Lukasz Luba
2020-02-12 11:12 ` Valentin Schneider
2020-02-14 0:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2020-02-14 15:45 ` Ionela Voinescu
2020-02-14 15:57 ` Ionela Voinescu
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=133890f7-59bb-63b9-0ca8-2294e3596058@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=ionela.voinescu@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-pm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lukasz.luba@arm.com \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=maz@kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=valentin.schneider@arm.com \
--cc=vincent.guittot@linaro.org \
--cc=viresh.kumar@linaro.org \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
/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).