Re: [PATCH v4 08/22] x86/mce/amd: Put list_head in threshold_bank

[Nikolay Borisov <nik.borisov@suse.com>]

On 6/24/25 17:16, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> The threshold_bank structure is a container for one or more
> threshold_block structures. Currently, the container has a single
> pointer to the 'first' threshold_block structure which then has a linked
> list of the remaining threshold_block structures.
> 
> This results in an extra level of indirection where the 'first' block is
> checked before iterating over the remaining blocks.
> 
> Remove the indirection by including the head of the block list in the
> threshold_bank structure which already acts as a container for all the
> bank's thresholding blocks.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Qiuxu Zhuo <qiuxu.zhuo@intel.com>
> Tested-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Reviewed-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
> ---
> 
> Notes:
>      Link:
>      https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250415-wip-mca-updates-v3-4-8ffd9eb4aa56@amd.com
>      
>      v3->v4:
>      * No change.
>      
>      v2->v3:
>      * Added tags from Qiuxu and Tony.
>      
>      v1->v2:
>      * New in v2.
> 
>   arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c | 43 ++++++++++++-------------------------------
>   1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> index 0ffbee329a8c..5d351ec863cd 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c
> @@ -241,7 +241,8 @@ struct threshold_block {
>   
>   struct threshold_bank {
>   	struct kobject		*kobj;
> -	struct threshold_block	*blocks;
> +	/* List of threshold blocks within this MCA bank. */
> +	struct list_head	miscj;
>   };
>   
>   static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct threshold_bank **, threshold_banks);
> @@ -900,9 +901,9 @@ static void log_and_reset_block(struct threshold_block *block)
>    */
>   static void amd_threshold_interrupt(void)
>   {
> -	struct threshold_block *first_block = NULL, *block = NULL, *tmp = NULL;
> -	struct threshold_bank **bp = this_cpu_read(threshold_banks);
> +	struct threshold_bank **bp = this_cpu_read(threshold_banks), *thr_bank;
>   	unsigned int bank, cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +	struct threshold_block *block, *tmp;
>   
>   	/*
>   	 * Validate that the threshold bank has been initialized already. The
> @@ -916,16 +917,11 @@ static void amd_threshold_interrupt(void)
>   		if (!(per_cpu(bank_map, cpu) & BIT_ULL(bank)))
>   			continue;

<slight off topic>

nit: I wonder if instead of using per_cpu and manual bit testing can't a direct
call to x86_this_cpu_test_bit be a better solution. The assembly looks like:

[OLD]

xorl    %r14d, %r14d    # ivtmp.245
movq    %rax, 8(%rsp)   # cpu, %sfp
# arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c:917:        if (!(per_cpu(bank_map, cpu) & BIT_ULL(bank)))
movq    $bank_map, %rax #, __ptr
movq    %rax, (%rsp)    # __ptr, %sfp
.L236:
movq    8(%rsp), %rax   # %sfp, cpu
# arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c:917:        if (!(per_cpu(bank_map, cpu) & BIT_ULL(bank)))
movq    (%rsp), %rsi    # %sfp, __ptr
# arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c:917:        if (!(per_cpu(bank_map, cpu) & BIT_ULL(bank)))
movq    __per_cpu_offset(,%rax,8), %rax # __per_cpu_offset[cpu_23], __per_cpu_offset[cpu_23]
# arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c:917:        if (!(per_cpu(bank_map, cpu) & BIT_ULL(bank)))
movq    (%rax,%rsi), %rax
# arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c:917:        if (!(per_cpu(bank_map, cpu) & BIT_ULL(bank)))
btq %r14, %rax

[NEW]

xorl    %r15d, %r15d    # ivtmp.246
.L236:
# 917 "arch/x86/kernel/cpu/mce/amd.c" 1
btl %r15d, %gs:bank_map(%rip)   # ivtmp.246, *_9


That way you end up with a single btl (but I guess a version that uses btq should be added as well)
inside the loop rather than a bunch of instructions moving data around for per_cpu.

Alternatively, since this is running in interrupt context can't you use directly this_cpu_read(bank_map) and eliminate the smp_processor_id invocation?

</slight off topic>

>   

<snip>