linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] v4: Add support for Numascale's NumaChip

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20111205091022.GA29006@elte.hu>
Date:	Mon, 5 Dec 2011 10:10:22 +0100
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
Cc:	Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] v4: Add support for Numascale's NumaChip


* Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com> wrote:

> From: Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
> 
> v2:
>  - [Steffen] enumerate only accessible northbridges
>  - [Daniel] rediffed and validated against 3.1-rc10
>  
> v3:
>  - [Daniel] use x86_init core numbering override
>  - [Daniel] cleanups as per feedback
> 
> v4:
>  - [Daniel] use updated x86_cpuinit override
>  
> Signed-off-by: Steffen Persvold <sp@...ascale.com>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <daniel@...ascale-asia.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/Kconfig                             |   12 +
>  arch/x86/include/asm/numachip/numachip_csr.h |  167 ++++++++++++++
>  arch/x86/kernel/apic/Makefile                |    1 +
>  arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c         |  312 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  4 files changed, 492 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/include/asm/numachip/numachip_csr.h
>  create mode 100644 arch/x86/kernel/apic/apic_numachip.c

The patches are now structured mostly right and look clean.

Other small details i noticed:

> +static int numachip_system;
> +
> +static struct apic apic_numachip;

Those want to be __read_mostly - this also makes them more NUMA 
friendly .

> +static int __cpuinit numachip_wakeup_secondary(int phys_apicid, unsigned long start_rip)
> +{
> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> +	union numachip_csr_g3_ext_irq_gen int_gen;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	int_gen.s._destination_apic_id = phys_apicid;
> +	int_gen.s._vector = 0;
> +	int_gen.s._msgtype = APIC_DM_INIT >> 8;
> +	int_gen.s._index = 0;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	write_lcsr(CSR_G3_EXT_IRQ_GEN, int_gen.v);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +	mdelay(10);

Exactly why does it have to sleep 10 milliseconds here? Please 
document it.

> +
> +	int_gen.s._msgtype = APIC_DM_STARTUP >> 8;
> +	int_gen.s._vector = start_rip >> 12;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	write_lcsr(CSR_G3_EXT_IRQ_GEN, int_gen.v);
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +
> +	atomic_set(&init_deasserted, 1);
> +#endif
> +	return 0;

You could do a 'depends on SMP' and stop uglifying the code with 
!SMP considerations. Unless a single-core installation with a UP 
kernel is possible and desired.

> +static void numachip_send_IPI_allbutself(int vector)
> +{
> +	unsigned int this_cpu = smp_processor_id();
> +	unsigned int cpu;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	for_each_online_cpu(cpu) {
> +		if (cpu != this_cpu)
> +			numachip_send_IPI_one(cpu, vector);
> +	}
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}

This seems preempt unsafe: you take smp_processor_id() before 
disabling hardirqs.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/