linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] arm64: Export __cpu_logical

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]

Date:   Mon, 10 Aug 2020 08:49:56 +0100
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Sumit Gupta <sumitg@...dia.com>
Cc:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
        Mikko Perttunen <mperttunen@...dia.com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
        Hulk Robot <hulkci@...wei.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        Bibek Basu <bbasu@...dia.com>,
        linux-tegra <linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] arm64: Export __cpu_logical_map

On Sat, Aug 01, 2020 at 05:46:43PM +0530, Sumit Gupta wrote:
>
> > > > > > ERROR: modpost: "__cpu_logical_map" [drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.ko] undefined!
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ARM64 tegra194-cpufreq driver use cpu_logical_map, export
> > > > > > __cpu_logical_map to fix build issue.
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I wonder why like other instances in the drivers, the mpidr is not get
> > > > directly from the cpu. The cpufreq_driver->init call happens when the cpu
> > > > is being brought online and is executed on the required cpu IIUC.
> > > >
> > > Yes, this occurs during hotplug case.
> > > But in the case of system boot, 'cpufreq_driver->init' is called later
> > > during cpufreq platform driver's probe. The value of CPU in 'policy->cpu'
> > > can be different from the current CPU. That's why read_cpuid_mpidr() can't
> > > be used.
> > >
> >
> > Fair enough, why not do cross call like in set_target ? Since it is one-off
> > in init, I don't see any issue when you are doing it runtime for set_target.
> >
> > > > read_cpuid_mpidr() is inline and avoids having to export the logical_cpu_map.
> > > > Though we may not add physical hotplug anytime soon, less dependency
> > > > on this cpu_logical_map is better given that we can resolve this without
> > > > the need to access the map.
> > > >
> >
> > To be honest, we have tried to remove all the dependency on cluster id
> > in generic code as it is not well defined. This one is tegra specific
> > driver so should be fine. But I am still bit nervous to export
> > cpu_logical_map as we have no clue what that would mean for physical
> > hotplug.
> >
> As suggested, I have done below change to get the cluster number using
> read_cpuid_mpidr(). Please review and suggest if this looks ok?
> I will send formal patch if the change is fine.
>
> Thanks,
> Sumit
>
> ----
>
> diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> index bae527e..06f5ccf 100644
> --- a/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/tegra194-cpufreq.c
> @@ -56,9 +56,11 @@ struct read_counters_work {
>
>  static struct workqueue_struct *read_counters_wq;
>
> -static enum cluster get_cpu_cluster(u8 cpu)
> +static void get_cpu_cluster(void *cluster)
>  {
> -       return MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(cpu_logical_map(cpu), 1);
> +       u64 mpidr = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK;
> +
> +       *((uint32_t *) cluster) = MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr, 1);
>  }
>
>  /*
> @@ -186,8 +188,10 @@ static unsigned int tegra194_get_speed(u32 cpu)
>  static int tegra194_cpufreq_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
>  {
>         struct tegra194_cpufreq_data *data = cpufreq_get_driver_data();
> -       int cl = get_cpu_cluster(policy->cpu);
>         u32 cpu;
> +       u32 cl;
> +
> +       smp_call_function_single(policy->cpu, get_cpu_cluster, &cl, true);

Thanks for this, looks good to me. You can add:

Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>

--
Regards,
Sudeep