| 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: <21cf288a-d9c9-a976-863b-5bb875d01ecc@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 15:32:29 +0000
From: "Moger, Babu" <Babu.Moger@....com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"fenghua.yu@...el.com" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com" <vikas.shivappa@...ux.intel.com>,
"tony.luck@...el.com" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"pombredanne@...b.com" <pombredanne@...b.com>,
"gregkh@...uxfoundation.org" <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"kstewart@...uxfoundation.org" <kstewart@...uxfoundation.org>,
"bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
"rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
"ak@...ux.intel.com" <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"xiaochen.shen@...el.com" <xiaochen.shen@...el.com>,
"colin.king@...onical.com" <colin.king@...onical.com>,
"Hurwitz, Sherry" <sherry.hurwitz@....com>,
"Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"dwmw@...zon.co.uk" <dwmw@...zon.co.uk>,
"luto@...nel.org" <luto@...nel.org>,
"jroedel@...e.de" <jroedel@...e.de>,
"jannh@...gle.com" <jannh@...gle.com>,
"dima@...sta.com" <dima@...sta.com>,
"jpoimboe@...hat.com" <jpoimboe@...hat.com>,
"vkuznets@...hat.com" <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 07/10] arch/x86: Bring few more functions into the
resource structure
On 10/02/2018 05:07 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
>
> On 9/24/2018 12:19 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> Bring all resource functions that are different between the vendors
>> into resource structure and initialize them dynamically.
>>
>> Implement these functions separately for each vendors.
>> update_mba_bw : Feedback loop bandwidth update functionality is not
>> needed for AMD.
>> cbm_validate : Cache bitmask validate function. AMD allows
>> non-contiguous masks. So, use separate functions for
>> Intel and AMD.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.h | 19 +++++++++++++------
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt_ctrlmondata.c | 4 ++--
>> arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt_monitor.c | 10 +++++++---
>> 4 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.c
>> index 6dec45bf81d6..ae26b9b3fafa 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.c
>> @@ -867,10 +867,19 @@ static __init void rdt_init_res_defs_intel(void)
>> struct rdt_resource *r;
>>
>> for_each_rdt_resource(r) {
>> - if (r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_MBA) {
>> - r->msr_base = IA32_MBA_THRTL_BASE;
>> - r->msr_update = mba_wrmsr;
>> - r->parse_ctrlval = parse_bw;
>> + if ((r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L3) ||
>> + (r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L3DATA) ||
>> + (r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L3CODE) ||
>> + (r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L2) ||
>> + (r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L2DATA) ||
>> + (r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_L2CODE))
>> + r->cbm_validate = cbm_validate;
>
> Same comment here about naming as in patch 6. Later cbm_validate_amd
> would appear while this remains - to help reduce confusion it may help
> to rename this function to cbm_validate_intel at this time.
Sure. Will make this change.
>
>> +
>> + else if (r->rid == RDT_RESOURCE_MBA) {
>> + r->msr_base = IA32_MBA_THRTL_BASE;
>> + r->msr_update = mba_wrmsr;
>> + r->parse_ctrlval = parse_bw;
>> + r->update_mba_bw = update_mba_bw;
>
> Same comment about naming.
Yes. Will add _intel to these functions.
>
>> }
>> }
>> }
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.h
>> index 2569c10c37f4..7205157d359b 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt.h
>> @@ -386,9 +386,9 @@ static inline bool is_mbm_event(int e)
>> * struct rdt_resource - attributes of an RDT resource
>> * @rid: The index of the resource
>> * @alloc_enabled: Is allocation enabled on this machine
>> - * @mon_enabled: Is monitoring enabled for this feature
>> + * @mon_enabled: Is monitoring enabled for this feature
>> * @alloc_capable: Is allocation available on this machine
>> - * @mon_capable: Is monitor feature available on this machine
>> + * @mon_capable: Is monitor feature available on this machine
>> * @name: Name to use in "schemata" file
>> * @num_closid: Number of CLOSIDs available
>> * @cache_level: Which cache level defines scope of this resource
>> @@ -400,10 +400,12 @@ static inline bool is_mbm_event(int e)
>> * @cache: Cache allocation related data
>> * @format_str: Per resource format string to show domain value
>> * @parse_ctrlval: Per resource function pointer to parse control values
>> - * @evt_list: List of monitoring events
>> - * @num_rmid: Number of RMIDs available
>> - * @mon_scale: cqm counter * mon_scale = occupancy in bytes
>> - * @fflags: flags to choose base and info files
>> + * @update_mba_bw: Feedback loop for MBA software controllerer function
>
> controllerer -> controller ?
Yes. Will fix it.
>
>> + * @cbm_validate Cache bitmask validate function
>> + * @evt_list: List of monitoring events
>> + * @num_rmid: Number of RMIDs available
>> + * @mon_scale: cqm counter * mon_scale = occupancy in bytes
>> + * @fflags: flags to choose base and info files
>> */
>> struct rdt_resource {
>> int rid;
>> @@ -425,6 +427,9 @@ struct rdt_resource {
>> const char *format_str;
>> int (*parse_ctrlval) (void *data, struct rdt_resource *r,
>> struct rdt_domain *d);
>> + void (*update_mba_bw) (struct rdtgroup *rgrp,
>> + struct rdt_domain *dom_mbm);
>> + bool (*cbm_validate) (char *buf, u32 *data, struct rdt_resource *r);
>> struct list_head evt_list;
>> int num_rmid;
>> unsigned int mon_scale;
>> @@ -562,5 +567,7 @@ void cqm_setup_limbo_handler(struct rdt_domain *dom, unsigned long delay_ms);
>> void cqm_handle_limbo(struct work_struct *work);
>> bool has_busy_rmid(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d);
>> void __check_limbo(struct rdt_domain *d, bool force_free);
>> +void update_mba_bw(struct rdtgroup *rgrp, struct rdt_domain *dom_mbm);
>> +bool cbm_validate(char *buf, u32 *data, struct rdt_resource *r);
>>
>> #endif /* _ASM_X86_RDT_H */
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt_ctrlmondata.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt_ctrlmondata.c
>> index 0565c564b297..5a282b6c4bd7 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt_ctrlmondata.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/rdt_ctrlmondata.c
>> @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ int parse_bw(void *_buf, struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d)
>> * are allowed (e.g. FFFFH, 0FF0H, 003CH, etc.).
>> * Additionally Haswell requires at least two bits set.
>> */
>> -static bool cbm_validate(char *buf, u32 *data, struct rdt_resource *r)
>> +bool cbm_validate(char *buf, u32 *data, struct rdt_resource *r)
>> {
>> unsigned long first_bit, zero_bit, val;
>> unsigned int cbm_len = r->cache.cbm_len;
>> @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ int parse_cbm(void *_data, struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>>
>> - if (!cbm_validate(data->buf, &cbm_val, r))
>> + if ((r->cbm_validate) && !(r->cbm_validate(data->buf, &cbm_val, r)))
>
> I do not think you need all of those brackets.
Yes. Will simplify this.
>
> Reinette
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists