linux-kernel - Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 06/11] cxl/mem: Trace DRAM Event Record

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: <Y0n0o0r85ldlLMqp@iweiny-desk3>
Date:   Fri, 14 Oct 2022 16:45:39 -0700
From:   Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
To:     Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
CC:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
        "Ben Widawsky" <bwidawsk@...nel.org>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC V2 PATCH 06/11] cxl/mem: Trace DRAM Event Record

On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 02:47:12PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 15:41:26 -0700
> ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> 
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > 
> > CXL rev 3.0 section 8.2.9.2.1.2 defines the DRAM Event Record.
> > 
> > Determine if the event read is a DRAM event record and if so trace the
> > record.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > 
> 
> Trivial comments inline
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> 
> > diff --git a/include/trace/events/cxl.h b/include/trace/events/cxl.h
> > index 82a8d3b750a2..7a90cfea348b 100644
> > --- a/include/trace/events/cxl.h
> > +++ b/include/trace/events/cxl.h
> > @@ -230,6 +230,100 @@ TRACE_EVENT(general_media,
> >  		)
> >  );
> >  
> 
> > +
> > +TRACE_EVENT(dram,
> > +
> > +	TP_PROTO(const char *dev_name, enum cxl_event_log_type log,
> > +		 struct cxl_event_dram *rec),
> > +
> > +	TP_ARGS(dev_name, log, rec),
> > +
> > +	TP_STRUCT__entry(
> > +		CXL_EVT_TP_entry
> > +		/* DRAM */
> > +		__field(u64, phys_addr)
> > +		__field(u8, descriptor)
> > +		__field(u8, type)
> > +		__field(u8, transaction_type)
> > +		__field(u8, channel)
> > +		__field(u16, validity_flags)
> > +		__field(u16, column)	/* Out of order to pack trace record */
> > +		__field(u32, nibble_mask)
> > +		__field(u32, row)
> > +		__array(u8, cor_mask, CXL_EVENT_DER_CORRECTION_MASK_SIZE)
> > +		__array(u8, reserved, CXL_EVENT_DER_RES_SIZE)
> 
> If we are going to have this, why not put it at the end?  Will that affect the
> packing badly?

I removed it.

[snip]

> > +
> > +	CXL_EVT_TP_printk("phys_addr=%llx volatile=%s desc='%s' type='%s' " \
> > +		"trans_type='%s' channel=%u rank=%u nibble_mask=%x " \
> > +		"bank_group=%u bank=%u row=%u column=%u cor_mask=%s " \
> > +		"valid_flags='%s' reserved=%s",
> > +		__entry->phys_addr & CXL_GMER_PHYS_ADDR_MASK,
> > +		(__entry->phys_addr & CXL_GMER_PHYS_ADDR_VOLATILE) ? "TRUE" : "FALSE",
> > +		show_event_desc_flags(__entry->descriptor),
> > +		show_mem_event_type(__entry->type),
> > +		show_trans_type(__entry->transaction_type),
> > +		__entry->channel, __entry->rank, __entry->nibble_mask,
> > +		__entry->bank_group, __entry->bank,
> > +		__entry->row, __entry->column,
> > +		__print_hex(__entry->cor_mask, CXL_EVENT_DER_CORRECTION_MASK_SIZE),
> > +		show_dram_valid_flags(__entry->validity_flags),
> > +		__print_hex(__entry->reserved, CXL_EVENT_DER_RES_SIZE)
> > +		)
> Probably one less tab on that trailing )?

Done.

Thanks!
Ira