linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] scmi-cpufreq: get opp_shared

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]

Message-ID: <1f9daaf8-e850-7c1b-7a32-71367982beaf@arm.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Dec 2020 11:34:36 +0000
From:   Lukasz Luba <lukasz.luba@....com>
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
        Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
Cc:     Nicola Mazzucato <nicola.mazzucato@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, vireshk@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        sboyd@...nel.org, nm@...com, daniel.lezcano@...aro.org,
        morten.rasmussen@....com, chris.redpath@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/4] scmi-cpufreq: get opp_shared_cpus from opp-v2 for
 EM



On 12/8/20 11:20 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 08, 2020 at 12:56:11PM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>> On 08-12-20, 07:22, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
>>> On 12/8/20 5:50 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote:
>>>> On 02-12-20, 17:23, Nicola Mazzucato wrote:
>>>>>   	nr_opp = dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(cpu_dev);
>>>>>   	if (nr_opp <= 0) {
>>>>> -		dev_dbg(cpu_dev, "OPP table is not ready, deferring probe\n");
>>>>> -		ret = -EPROBE_DEFER;
>>>>> -		goto out_free_opp;
>>>>> +		ret = handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add(handle, cpu_dev);
>>>>> +		if (ret) {
>>>>> +			dev_warn(cpu_dev, "failed to add opps to the device\n");
>>>>> +			goto out_free_cpumask;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		ret = dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus(cpu_dev, opp_shared_cpus);
>>>>> +		if (ret) {
>>>>> +			dev_err(cpu_dev, "%s: failed to mark OPPs as shared: %d\n",
>>>>> +				__func__, ret);
>>>>> +			goto out_free_cpumask;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Why do we need to call above two after calling
>>>> dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count() ?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I am not sure to understand your question here. If there are no opps for
>>> a device we want to add them to it
>>
>> Earlier we used to call handle->perf_ops->device_opps_add() and
>> dev_pm_opp_set_sharing_cpus() before calling dev_pm_opp_get_opp_count(), why is
>> the order changed now ?
>>
>>
>> I am not sure why they would be duplicated in your case. I though
>> device_opps_add() is responsible for dynamically adding the OPPs here.
>>
> 
> It is because of per-CPU vs per domain drama here. Imagine a system with
> 4 CPUs which the firmware puts in individual domains while they all are
> in the same perf domain and hence OPP is marked shared in DT.
> 
> Since this probe gets called for all the cpus, we need to skip adding
> OPPs for the last 3(add only for 1st one and mark others as shared).
> If we attempt to add OPPs on second cpu probe, it *will* shout as duplicate
> OPP as we would have already marked it as shared table with the first cpu.
> Am I missing anything ? I suggested this as Nicola saw OPP duplicate
> warnings when he was hacking up this patch.
> 
>>> otherwise no need as they would be duplicated.
>>>> And we don't check the return value of
>>>> the below call anymore, moreover we have to call it twice now.
> 
> Yes, that looks wrong, we need to add the check for non zero values, but ....
> 
>>>
>>> This second get_opp_count is required such that we register em with the correct
>>> opp number after having added them. Without this the opp_count would not be correct.
>>
> 
> ... I have a question here. Why do you need to call
> 
> em_dev_register_perf_domain(cpu_dev, nr_opp, &em_cb, opp_shared_cpus..)
> 
> on each CPU ? Why can't that be done once for unique opp_shared_cpus ?

It just have to be called once, for one CPU from the mask. Otherwise for
the next CPUs you should see error:
"EM: exists for CPU%d"
It can happen that this print is not seen when the get_cpu_device(cpu)
failed, but that would lead to investigation why CPU devices are not
there yet.

Nicola: have you seen that print?