[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <343d12e8-9934-9194-cadd-7d133567396c@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 13:10:23 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, <corbet@....net>,
<tglx@...utronix.de>, <mingo@...hat.com>, <bp@...en8.de>
CC: <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
<x86@...nel.org>, <hpa@...or.com>, <paulmck@...nel.org>,
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <quic_neeraju@...cinc.com>,
<rdunlap@...radead.org>, <damien.lemoal@...nsource.wdc.com>,
<songmuchun@...edance.com>, <peterz@...radead.org>,
<jpoimboe@...nel.org>, <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
<chang.seok.bae@...el.com>, <pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com>,
<jmattson@...gle.com>, <daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>,
<sandipan.das@....com>, <tony.luck@...el.com>,
<james.morse@....com>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <bagasdotme@...il.com>,
<eranian@...gle.com>, <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
<jarkko@...nel.org>, <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
<quic_jiles@...cinc.com>, <peternewman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] x86/resctrl: Unwind the errors inside
rdt_enable_ctx()
Hi Babu,
On 8/21/2023 4:30 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
> static int rdt_enable_ctx(struct rdt_fs_context *ctx)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> - if (ctx->enable_cdpl2)
> + if (ctx->enable_cdpl2) {
> ret = resctrl_arch_set_cdp_enabled(RDT_RESOURCE_L2, true);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_done;
> + }
>
> - if (!ret && ctx->enable_cdpl3)
> + if (ctx->enable_cdpl3) {
> ret = resctrl_arch_set_cdp_enabled(RDT_RESOURCE_L3, true);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_cdpl2;
> + }
>
> - if (!ret && ctx->enable_mba_mbps)
> + if (ctx->enable_mba_mbps) {
> ret = set_mba_sc(true);
> + if (ret)
> + goto out_cdpl3;
An error may be encountered here without CDP ever enabled or just
enabled for L2 or L3. I think that the error unwinding should
take care to not unwind an action that was not done. Considering
the information available I think checking either ctx->enable_...
or the checks used in rdt_disable_ctx() would be ok but for consistency
the resctrl_arch_get_cdp_enabled() checks may be most appropriate.
> + }
> +
> + return 0;
>
> +out_cdpl3:
So here I think there should be a check.
if (resctrl_arch_get_cdp_enabled(RDT_RESOURCE_L3))
> + resctrl_arch_set_cdp_enabled(RDT_RESOURCE_L3, false);
> +out_cdpl2:
... and here a check:
if (resctrl_arch_get_cdp_enabled(RDT_RESOURCE_L2))
> + resctrl_arch_set_cdp_enabled(RDT_RESOURCE_L2, false);
> +out_done:
> return ret;
> }
>
Reinette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists