From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: fenghua.yu@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com,
jithu.joseph@intel.com, gavin.hindman@intel.com,
dave.hansen@intel.com, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/intel_rdt: CBM overlap should also check for overlap with CDP peer
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 12:51:38 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cd0877d5-e860-21f7-0f5f-e348d996e45c@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1810032138290.27796@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Hi Thomas,
On 10/3/2018 12:43 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 10/3/2018 12:02 AM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rdt_resource *r_cdp;
>>>> + struct rdt_domain *d_cdp;
>>>> + bool ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = _rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(r, d, _cbm, closid, exclusive);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + return ret;
>>>
>>> if (__rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(r, d, _cbm, closid, exclusive))
>>> return true;
>>>
>>>> +
>>>> + if (rdt_cdp_peer_get(r, d, &r_cdp, &d_cdp) == 0)
>>>> + return _rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(r_cdp, d_cdp, _cbm,
>>>> + closid, exclusive);
>>>
>>> if (rdt_cdp_peer_get(r, d, &r_cdp, &d_cdp) < 0)
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> return __rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(r_cpd, d_cdp, _cbm, closid, exclusive);
>>>
>>> Makes the whole thing more obvious.
>>
>> I think a different change is needed to support the request from your
>> review of the first patch to propagate that unthinkable error where only
>> one of the CDP peers could have an rdt_domain associated with it.
>>
>> In the above that error in question from rdt_cdp_peer_get() will be lost.
>>
>> I could do the following in support of propagating that error (note that
>> in support of the code below __rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps() also changes to
>> return int instead of bool):
>>
>> int rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d,
>> u32 cbm, int closid, bool exclusive)
>> {
>> struct rdt_resource *r_cdp;
>> struct rdt_domain *d_cdp;
>> int ret;
>>
>> if (__rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(r, d, cbm, closid, exclusive))
>> return 1;
>>
>> ret = rdt_cdp_peer_get(r, d, &r_cdp, &d_cdp);
>> if (ret == -ENOENT) {
>> return 0;
>> } else if (ret == -EINVAL) {
>> rdt_last_cmd_puts("Error finding CDP peer\n");
>> return ret;
>> } else {
>> return __rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(r_cdp, d_cdp, cbm,
>> closid, exclusive);
>> }
>>
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> With the above change in rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps() the call sites then
>> change to for example:
>>
>> ret = rdtgroup_cbm_overlaps(r, d, cbm_val, rdtgrp->closid, true);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> /* last_cmd_status already populated with error */
>> return -EINVAL;
>> } else if (ret == 1) {
>> rdt_last_cmd_puts("overlaps with exclusive group\n");
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> /* fall through when no overlap detected */
>>
>> Would this be acceptable?
>
> We really have to think about that whether it's worth it. Looking at the
> resulting code I doubt it. Then I'd rather prefer the warnon and the
> simpler code. But either way works for me.
Thank you very much. I'll resubmit with the changes you prefer.
Reinette
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-03 19:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-09-26 18:59 [PATCH 0/3] x86/intel_rdt: Fix exclusive mode with CDP resources Reinette Chatre
2018-09-26 18:59 ` [PATCH 1/3] x86/intel_rdt: Introduce utility to obtain CDP peer Reinette Chatre
2018-10-03 6:46 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-09-26 18:59 ` [PATCH 2/3] x86/intel_rdt: CBM overlap should also check for overlap with " Reinette Chatre
2018-10-03 7:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-03 18:16 ` Reinette Chatre
2018-10-03 19:43 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-10-03 19:51 ` Reinette Chatre [this message]
2018-09-26 18:59 ` [PATCH 3/3] x86/intel_rdt: Fix initial allocation to consider CDP 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=cd0877d5-e860-21f7-0f5f-e348d996e45c@intel.com \
--to=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=fenghua.yu@intel.com \
--cc=gavin.hindman@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=jithu.joseph@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).