| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAPrCYkf0KH0zKFrFwG6XK1Kz2dsKUZC1wL5ONhNGvY3BLM8QGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:48:31 +0530
From: Vinayak Kale <vkale@....com>
To: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
Cc: linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>, patches <patches@....com>,
"jcm@...hat.com" <jcm@...hat.com>, tglx <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Tuan Phan <tphan@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 2/2] arm64: perf: add support for percpu pmu interrupt
On Mon, Nov 18, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com> wrote:
> Vinayak,
>
>
> On 2013-11-18 13:22, Vinayak Kale wrote:
>>
>> Add support for irq registration when pmu interrupt is percpu.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vinayak Kale <vkale@....com>
>> Signed-off-by: Tuan Phan <tphan@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c | 102
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>> 1 file changed, 74 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> index cea1594..23475f6 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/perf_event.c
>> @@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
>>
>> #include <linux/bitmap.h>
>> #include <linux/interrupt.h>
>> +#include <linux/irq.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> #include <linux/export.h>
>> #include <linux/perf_event.h>
>> @@ -363,22 +364,51 @@ validate_group(struct perf_event *event)
>> }
>>
>> static void
>> +armpmu_disable_percpu_irq(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data;
>> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
>> +
>> + cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(smp_processor_id(),
>> &armpmu->active_irqs);
>> + disable_percpu_irq(irq);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static void
>> armpmu_release_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>> {
>> int i, irq, irqs;
>> struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>>
>> - irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources, num_possible_cpus());
>> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
>> - if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs))
>> - continue;
>> - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
>> - if (irq >= 0)
>> - free_irq(irq, armpmu);
>> + if (irq_to_desc(irq) && irq_is_percpu(irq)) {
>
>
> Why do you need to check the irq_desc here? It really looks like a misuse of
> the API.
I don't think it's being misused. In case of invalid irq number, the
API would return null.
> Instead, you should check the value of irq itself (it should be strictly
> positive).
>
>
>> + on_each_cpu(armpmu_disable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1);
>> + free_percpu_irq(irq, &cpu_hw_events);
>> + } else {
>> + irqs = min(pmu_device->num_resources,
>> num_possible_cpus());
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
>> + if (!cpumask_test_and_clear_cpu(i,
>> &armpmu->active_irqs))
>> + continue;
>> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
>> + if (irq >= 0)
>
>
> irq == 0 means "no-irq". You should handle it as an error case.
This part of the code (for non-percpu irq) was already present in driver as is.
Will was Okay with it as per his review on V1 here:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-November/210102.html
>
>
>> + free_irq(irq, armpmu);
>> + }
>> }
>> }
>>
>> +static void
>> +armpmu_enable_percpu_irq(void *data)
>> +{
>> + struct arm_pmu *armpmu = data;
>> + struct platform_device *pmu_device = armpmu->plat_device;
>> + int irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
>> +
>> + enable_percpu_irq(irq, 0);
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(smp_processor_id(), &armpmu->active_irqs);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int
>> armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>> {
>> @@ -396,34 +426,50 @@ armpmu_reserve_hardware(struct arm_pmu *armpmu)
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
>>
>> - for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
>> - err = 0;
>> - irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
>> - if (irq < 0)
>> - continue;
>> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, 0);
>>
>> - /*
>> - * If we have a single PMU interrupt that we can't shift,
>> - * assume that we're running on a uniprocessor machine and
>> - * continue. Otherwise, continue without this interrupt.
>> - */
>> - if (irq_set_affinity(irq, cpumask_of(i)) && irqs > 1) {
>> - pr_warning("unable to set irq affinity (irq=%d,
>> cpu=%u)\n",
>> - irq, i);
>> - continue;
>> - }
>> + if (irq_to_desc(irq) && irq_is_percpu(irq)) {
>
>
> Same comment about irq_to_desc.
>
>
>> + err = request_percpu_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq,
>> + "arm-pmu", &cpu_hw_events);
>>
>> - err = request_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq,
>> - IRQF_NOBALANCING,
>> - "arm-pmu", armpmu);
>> if (err) {
>> - pr_err("unable to request IRQ%d for ARM PMU
>> counters\n",
>> - irq);
>> + pr_err("unable to request percpu IRQ%d for ARM PMU
>> counters\n",
>> + irq);
>> armpmu_release_hardware(armpmu);
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>> - cpumask_set_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs);
>> + on_each_cpu(armpmu_enable_percpu_irq, armpmu, 1);
>> + } else {
>> + for (i = 0; i < irqs; ++i) {
>> + err = 0;
>> + irq = platform_get_irq(pmu_device, i);
>> + if (irq < 0)
>
>
> Same comment about irq == 0.
This part of the code (for non-percpu irq) was already present in driver as is.
Will was Okay with it as per his review on V1 here:
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-November/210102.html
>
>
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * If we have a single PMU interrupt that we can't
>> shift,
>> + * assume that we're running on a uniprocessor
>> machine and
>> + * continue. Otherwise, continue without this
>> interrupt.
>> + */
>> + if (irq_set_affinity(irq, cpumask_of(i)) && irqs >
>> 1) {
>> + pr_warning("unable to set irq affinity
>> (irq=%d, cpu=%u)\n",
>> + irq, i);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> +
>> + err = request_irq(irq, armpmu->handle_irq,
>> + IRQF_NOBALANCING,
>> + "arm-pmu", armpmu);
>> + if (err) {
>> + pr_err("unable to request IRQ%d for ARM
>> PMU counters\n",
>> + irq);
>> + armpmu_release_hardware(armpmu);
>> + return err;
>> + }
>> +
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(i, &armpmu->active_irqs);
>> + }
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>
>
> --
> Fast, cheap, reliable. Pick two.
> --
> 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/
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists