Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 14:09:48 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
cc:	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...el.com>,
	Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
	x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com,
	mingo@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
	Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
	"Auld, Will" <will.auld@...el.com>, peter.zijlstra@...el.com,
	h.peter.anvin@...el.com,
	"Juvva, Kanaka D" <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>, mtosatti@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] x86/intel_rdt: Add support for cache bit mask
 management



On Mon, 18 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:

> On Mon, 18 May 2015, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 May 2015, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Mask of CPUs for writing CBM values. We only need one per-socket.
>>>
>>> One mask? One CPU? One what? Please add comments which are
>>> understandable and useful for people who did NOT write that code.
>>
>> when there is already code in the upstream code which has comments exactly
>> consistent - when that made sense , this should ?
>>
>> /*
>>  * Mask of CPUs for reading CQM values. We only need one per-socket.
>>  */
>> static cpumask_t cqm_cpumask;
>
> And just because there is a lousy comment upstream it does not become
> better by copying it.

Nice , will fix.

>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * cbm_update_msrs() - Updates all the existing IA32_L3_MASK_n MSRs
>>>> + * which are one per CLOSid, except IA32_L3_MASK_0 on the current
>>>> package.
>>>> + * @cpu : the cpu on which the mask is updated.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static inline void cbm_update_msrs(int cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int maxid = boot_cpu_data.x86_rdt_max_closid;
>>>> +	unsigned int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	if (WARN_ON(cpu != smp_processor_id()))
>>>> +		return;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for (i = 1; i < maxid; i++) {
>>>
>>> Lacks a comment why this starts with 1 and not with 0 as one would expect.
>>
>> Its in the function comment just above - "except IA32_L3_MASK_0 on the current
>> package."
>
> No. That comment explains WHAT it does not WHY. Asided of that that
> comment is not correct KernelDoc format.

Will fix to kerneldoc format.

>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * intel_cache_alloc_cbm_write() - Validates and writes the
>>>> + * cache bit mask(cbm) to the IA32_L3_MASK_n
>>>> + * and also store the same in the ccmap.
>>>> + *
>>>> + * CLOSids are reused for cgroups which have same bitmask.
>>>> + * - This helps to use the scant CLOSids optimally.
>>>> + * - This also implies that at context switch write
>>>> + * to PQR-MSR is done only when a task with a
>>>> + * different bitmask is scheduled in.
>>>> + */
>>>> +static int intel_cache_alloc_cbm_write(struct cgroup_subsys_state *css,
>>>
>>> Can you please drop these intel_ prefixes? They provide no value and
>>> just eat space.
>>
>> well , i got ample comments which wanted me to me to specify intel as this
>> feature is specific to intel.
>
> It's fine for public interfaces, but for functions which are only used
> inside a file which contains only intel specific code it's just silly.

Ok , will keep for cgroup interfaces or something similar and remove for others.

>
>> the cache monitoring code has similar prefixes as well - is that pref specific
>
> Sigh. There is so much crap in the kernel, you'll find an example for
> everything.

its the example for the same RDT feature !

>
>> then ? I just dont want people to come back and ask to make it clear that
>> things are intel specific
>
> The file name tells everyone its INTEL specific, right? And following
> your argumentation you should have named your helper functions
> intel_get_closid() and intel_put_closid() as well.
>
> If your code would have been in a proper shape otherwise, I would
> probably have just let it slip.
>


>> taskset ignores the extra bits. is that a problem here ?
>
> I do not care, what taskset does. I care what this code does.
>
> It tells the user that: 0x100ffff is fine, even if the valid bits are
> just 0xffff.
>
> And taskset is a different story due to cpu hotplug.

>
> But for CAT the maskbits are defined by hardware and cannot change
> ever. So why would we allow to set invalid ones and claim that its
> correct?

ok ,will return error for all invalid bitmasks.

>
> If there is a reason to do so, then it needs a proper comment in the
> code and a proper explanation in Documentation/.....
>
>>>> +static inline bool intel_rdt_update_cpumask(int cpu)
>>>> +{
>>>> +	int phys_id = topology_physical_package_id(cpu);
>>>> +	struct cpumask *mask = &rdt_cpumask;
>>>> +	int i;
>>>> +
>>>> +	for_each_cpu(i, mask) {
>>>> +		if (phys_id == topology_physical_package_id(i))
>>>> +			return false;
>>>> +	}
>>>
>>> You must be kidding.
>>
>> the rapl and cqm use similar code. You want me to keep a seperate package mask
>> for this code which not would be that frequent at all ?
>
> You find for everything a place where you copied your stuff from
> without thinking about it, right?

its the code for the same RDT feature which was upstreamed just a few weeks 
ago.. not ancient!

>
> Other people dessperately try to fix the cpu online times which are
> more and more interesting the larger the systems become. So it might
> be a good idea to come up with a proper fast implementation which can
> be used everywhere instead of blindly copying code.
>
>> for c-state transitions only idle_notifier gets called - so this is only when
>> a new package is physically added. and we dont need anything for cache alloc
>> for idle transitions. not really frequent ?
>
> Crap. It's called for every cpu which comes online and goes offline,
> not for new packages.

I erred during comment, I meant we update the masks for every package but I get 
your point , the loop runs nonetheless for every cpu.
will fix.

Thanks,
Vikas

>
> Thanks,
>
> 	tglx
>
--
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