linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
	kuo-lang.tseng@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
	x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 01/10] x86/CPU: Expose if cache is inclusive of lower level caches
Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:55:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <151002be-33e6-20d6-7699-bc9be7e51f33@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190806155716.GE25897@zn.tnic>

Hi Borislav,

On 8/6/2019 8:57 AM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 10:57:04AM -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> What do you think?
> 
> Actually, I was thinking about something a lot simpler: something
> along the lines of adding the CPUID check in a helper function which
> rdt_pseudo_lock_init() calls. If the cache is not inclusive - and my
> guess is it would suffice to check any cache but I'd prefer you correct
> me on that - you simply return error and rdt_pseudo_lock_init() returns
> early without doing any futher init.
> 
> How does that sound?

I am a bit cautious about this. When I started this work I initially
added a helper function to resctrl that calls CPUID to determine if the
cache is inclusive. At that time I became aware of a discussion
motivating against scattered CPUID calls and motivating for one instance
of CPUID information:
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/alpine.DEB.2.21.1906162141301.1760@nanos.tec.linutronix.de

My interpretation of the above resulted in a move away from calling
CPUID in resctrl to the patch you are reviewing now.

I do indeed prefer a simple approach and would change to what you
suggest if you find it to be best.

To answer your question about checking any cache: this seems to be
different between L2 and L3. On the Atom systems where L2 pseudo-locking
works well the L2 cache is not inclusive. We are also working on
supporting cache pseudo-locking on L3 cache that is not inclusive.

I could add the single CPUID check during rdt_pseudo_lock_init(),
checking on any CPU should work. I think it would be simpler (reasons
below) to initialize that single system-wide setting in
rdt_pseudo_lock_init() and keep the result locally in the pseudo-locking
code, that can be referred to when the user requests the pseudo-locked
region.

Simpler for two reasons:
* Prevent future platform specific code within rdt_pseudo_lock_init()
trying to pick when L3 is allowed to be inclusive or not.
* rdt_pseudo_lock_init() does not currently make decision whether
platform supports pseudo-locking - this is currently done when user
requests a pseudo-lock region. rdt_pseudo_lock_init() does
initialization of things that should not fail and for which resctrl's
mount should not proceed if it fails. A platform not supporting
pseudo-locking should not prevent resctrl from being mounted and used
for cache allocation.

Thank you very much

Reinette

  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-06 16:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-30 17:29 [PATCH V2 00/10] x86/CPU and x86/resctrl: Support pseudo-lock regions spanning L2 and L3 cache Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 01/10] x86/CPU: Expose if cache is inclusive of lower level caches Reinette Chatre
2019-08-02 18:03   ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-02 20:11     ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-03  9:44       ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-05 17:57         ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-06 15:57           ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-06 16:55             ` Reinette Chatre [this message]
2019-08-06 17:33               ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-06 18:13                 ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-06 18:33                   ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-06 18:53                     ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-06 19:16                       ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-06 20:22                         ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-06 20:40                           ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-06 21:16                             ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-08  8:08                               ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-08  8:13                                 ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-08 20:08                                   ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-09  7:33                                     ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-09 16:18                                       ` Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 02/10] x86/resctrl: Remove unnecessary size compute Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 03/10] x86/resctrl: Constrain C-states during pseudo-lock region init Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 04/10] x86/resctrl: Set cache line size using new utility Reinette Chatre
2019-08-05 15:57   ` Borislav Petkov
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 05/10] x86/resctrl: Associate pseudo-locked region's cache instance by id Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 06/10] x86/resctrl: Introduce utility to return pseudo-locked cache portion Reinette Chatre
2019-08-05 16:07   ` Borislav Petkov
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 07/10] x86/resctrl: Remove unnecessary pointer to pseudo-locked region Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 08/10] x86/resctrl: Support pseudo-lock regions spanning resources Reinette Chatre
2019-08-07  9:18   ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-07 19:07     ` Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 09/10] x86/resctrl: Pseudo-lock portions of multiple resources Reinette Chatre
2019-08-07 15:25   ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-07 19:23     ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-08  8:44       ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-08 20:13         ` Reinette Chatre
2019-08-09  7:38           ` Borislav Petkov
2019-08-09 16:20             ` Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 17:29 ` [PATCH V2 10/10] x86/resctrl: Only pseudo-lock L3 cache when inclusive Reinette Chatre
2019-07-30 20:00 ` [PATCH V2 00/10] x86/CPU and x86/resctrl: Support pseudo-lock regions spanning L2 and L3 cache Thomas Gleixner
2019-07-30 20:10   ` Reinette Chatre

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=151002be-33e6-20d6-7699-bc9be7e51f33@intel.com \
    --to=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=kuo-lang.tseng@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=x86@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).