linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu nodes

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Tue, 7 Jan 2020 14:12:17 +0100
From:   Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@....com>
To:     "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
        "sudeep.holla@....com" <sudeep.holla@....com>
Cc:     Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu nodes

On 07/01/2020 02:35, Zengtao (B) wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Dietmar Eggemann [mailto:dietmar.eggemann@....com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2020 2:42 AM
>> To: Zengtao (B); sudeep.holla@....com
>> Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki;
>> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
>> nodes
>>
>> On 02/01/2020 04:24, Zeng Tao wrote:
>>> When CONFIG_NR_CPUS is smaller than the cpu nodes defined in the
>> device
>>> tree, the cpu node parsing will fail. And this is not reasonable for a
>>> legal device tree configs.
>>> In this patch, skip such cpu nodes rather than return an error.
>>
>> Is this extra code really necessary?
>>
>> Currently you get warnings indicating that CONFIG_NR_CPUS is too small
>> so you could correct the setup issue easily.
>>
> 
> Not only about warning messages, the problem is :
> What we are expected to do if the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is too small? I think there
> are two choices:
> 1. Keep the dts parsing result, but skip the the CPU nodes whose id exceeds the 
> the CONFIG_NR_CPUS, and this is what this patch do.
> 2. Just abort all the CPU nodes parsing, and using MPIDR to guess the topology, 
> and this is what the current code do.

Ah, you're referring to:

530 void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
531 {
...
540         else if (of_have_populated_dt() && parse_dt_topology())
541 -->             reset_cpu_topology();

With my Juno example (6 Cpus in DT but CONFIG_NR_CPUS=4):

root@...o:~# dmesg | grep "\*\*\|mpidr"
[    0.084760] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=1
[    0.088706] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=2
[    0.092592] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=0
[    0.096550] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=3
[    0.105578] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=-19
[    0.116070] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=0
[    0.120355] CPU0: cluster 1 core 0 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000100
[    0.242465] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=1
[    0.242471] CPU1: cluster 0 core 0 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000000
[    0.286505] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=2
[    0.286510] CPU2: cluster 0 core 1 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000001
[    0.330631] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=3
[    0.330637] CPU3: cluster 1 core 1 thread -1 mpidr 0x00000080000101

and with your patch:

root@...o:~# dmesg | grep "\*\*\|mpidr"
[    0.084778] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=1
[    0.088742] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=2
[    0.092662] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=0
[    0.096627] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=3
[    0.107942] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=-19
[    0.119429] ** get_cpu_for_node() cpu=-19
[    0.123461] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=0
[    0.243571] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=1
[    0.287610] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=2
[    0.331737] ** store_cpu_topology(): cpuid=3

so we bail out of store_cpu_topology() since 'cpuid_topo->package_id != -1'.

> And i think choice 1 is better because:
> 1. It's a legal dts, we should keep the same result whether CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> too small or not.
> 2. In the function of_parse_and_init_cpus, we just do the same way as choice 1.
> 
> But i am open for the issue, any suggestions are welcomed.

[...]