From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
To: Radu Rendec <rrendec@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] cacheinfo: Add arch specific early level initializer
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2023 10:17:29 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <10dd6c41-b09b-624c-ba1b-183f4e879ff6@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230403231551.1090704-2-rrendec@redhat.com>
Hello Radu,
On 4/4/23 01:15, Radu Rendec wrote:
> This patch gives of architecture specific code the ability to initialize
> the cache level and allocate cacheinfo memory early, when cache level
> initialization runs on the primary CPU for all possible CPUs.
>
> This is part of a patch series that attempts to further the work in
> commit 5944ce092b97 ("arch_topology: Build cacheinfo from primary CPU").
> Previously, in the absence of any DT/ACPI cache info, architecture
> specific cache detection and info allocation for secondary CPUs would
> happen in non-preemptible context during early CPU initialization and
> trigger a "BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context" splat on
> an RT kernel.
>
> More specifically, this patch adds the early_cache_level() function,
> which is called by fetch_cache_info() as a fallback when the number of
> cache leaves cannot be extracted from DT/ACPI. In the default generic
> (weak) implementation, this new function returns -ENOENT, which
> preserves the original behavior for architectures that do not implement
> the function.
>
> Since early detection can get the number of cache leaves wrong in some
> cases*, additional logic is added to still call init_cache_level() later
> on the secondary CPU, therefore giving the architecture specific code an
> opportunity to go back and fix the initial guess. Again, the original
> behavior is preserved for architectures that do not implement the new
> function.
>
> * For example, on arm64, CLIDR_EL1 detection works only when it runs on
> the current CPU. In other words, a CPU cannot detect the cache depth
> for any other CPU than itself.
>
> Signed-off-by: Radu Rendec <rrendec@redhat.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> index f6573c335f4c..7f8ac0cb549f 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -398,6 +398,11 @@ static void free_cache_attributes(unsigned int cpu)
> cache_shared_cpu_map_remove(cpu);
> }
>
> +int __weak early_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> + return -ENOENT;
> +}
> +
> int __weak init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> return -ENOENT;
> @@ -423,51 +428,65 @@ int allocate_cache_info(int cpu)
>
> int fetch_cache_info(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> - struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci;
> + struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
> unsigned int levels = 0, split_levels = 0;
> int ret;
>
> - if (acpi_disabled) {
> + if (acpi_disabled)
> ret = init_of_cache_level(cpu);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ret;
> - } else {
> + else {
NIT: I think braces should be used in the first branch if they
are used in the second branch, cf. './scripts/checkpatch.pl --strict'
> ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &levels, &split_levels);
> - if (ret < 0)
> + if (!ret) {
> + this_cpu_ci->num_levels = levels;
> + /*
> + * This assumes that:
> + * - there cannot be any split caches (data/instruction)
> + * above a unified cache
> + * - data/instruction caches come by pair
> + */
> + this_cpu_ci->num_leaves = levels + split_levels;
> + }
> + }
> +
> + if (ret || !cache_leaves(cpu)) {
> + ret = early_cache_level(cpu);
> + if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> - this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
> - this_cpu_ci->num_levels = levels;
> - /*
> - * This assumes that:
> - * - there cannot be any split caches (data/instruction)
> - * above a unified cache
> - * - data/instruction caches come by pair
> - */
> - this_cpu_ci->num_leaves = levels + split_levels;
> + if (!cache_leaves(cpu))
> + return -ENOENT;
> +
> + this_cpu_ci->early_arch_info = true;
> }
> - if (!cache_leaves(cpu))
> - return -ENOENT;
>
> return allocate_cache_info(cpu);
> }
>
> int detect_cache_attributes(unsigned int cpu)
> {
[start]
> + unsigned int early_leaves = cache_leaves(cpu);
> int ret;
>
> /* Since early initialization/allocation of the cacheinfo is allowed
> * via fetch_cache_info() and this also gets called as CPU hotplug
> * callbacks via cacheinfo_cpu_online, the init/alloc can be skipped
> * as it will happen only once (the cacheinfo memory is never freed).
> - * Just populate the cacheinfo.
> + * Just populate the cacheinfo. However, if the cacheinfo has been
> + * allocated early through the arch-specific early_cache_level() call,
> + * there is a chance the info is wrong (this can happen on arm64). In
> + * that case, call init_cache_level() anyway to give the arch-specific
> + * code a chance to make things right.
> */
> - if (per_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu))
> + if (per_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu) && !ci_cacheinfo(cpu)->early_arch_info)
> goto populate_leaves;
>
> if (init_cache_level(cpu) || !cache_leaves(cpu))
> return -ENOENT;
>
> + if (cache_leaves(cpu) <= early_leaves)
> + goto populate_leaves;
> +
> + kfree(per_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu))> ret = allocate_cache_info(cpu);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
[stop]
Maybe this would be the occasion to put the code between the start/stop in a separate
function and remove the 'populate_leaves' label. The code seems correct, but it was
already a bit complex to read before the patch.
> diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> index 908e19d17f49..c9d44308fc42 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> @@ -76,9 +76,11 @@ struct cpu_cacheinfo {
> unsigned int num_levels;
> unsigned int num_leaves;
> bool cpu_map_populated;
> + bool early_arch_info;
> };
>
> struct cpu_cacheinfo *get_cpu_cacheinfo(unsigned int cpu);
> +int early_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-04-06 8:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-04-03 23:15 [PATCH v2 0/2] arch_topology: Pre-allocate cacheinfo from primary CPU Radu Rendec
2023-04-03 23:15 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] cacheinfo: Add arch specific early level initializer Radu Rendec
2023-04-06 8:17 ` Pierre Gondois [this message]
2023-04-06 21:21 ` Radu Rendec
2023-04-03 23:15 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] cacheinfo: Add arm64 early level initializer implementation Radu Rendec
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=10dd6c41-b09b-624c-ba1b-183f4e879ff6@arm.com \
--to=pierre.gondois@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rrendec@redhat.com \
--cc=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®