linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v11 3/8] x86/resctrl: Prepare for different scope for control/monitor operations

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: <e2dc025e-4776-4876-961b-470a6273b8e8@intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2023 14:19:04 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>, Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        "Peter Newman" <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        "Shuah Khan" <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, <x86@...nel.org>
CC:     Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 3/8] x86/resctrl: Prepare for different scope for
 control/monitor operations

Hi Tony,

On 11/9/2023 3:09 PM, Tony Luck wrote:

...

> +static void domain_remove_cpu_ctrl(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
> +{
> +	int id = get_domain_id_from_scope(cpu, r->ctrl_scope);
>  	struct rdt_hw_domain *hw_dom;
> +	struct rdt_domain_hdr *hdr;
>  	struct rdt_domain *d;
>  
>  	if (id < 0)
>  		return;
>  
> -	d = rdt_find_domain(r, id, NULL);
> -	if (!d) {
> -		pr_warn("Couldn't find domain with id=%d for CPU %d\n", id, cpu);
> +	hdr = rdt_find_domain(&r->ctrl_domains, id, NULL);
> +	if (!hdr) {
> +		pr_warn("Couldn't find control scope id=%d for CPU %d\n", id, cpu);

This error message seems strange to me. Shouldn't this just be "Couldn't find
control domain with id=..."? Also, can the resource name be added in error message
to help user dig into cause of error?


>  		return;
>  	}
> +
> +	if (WARN_ON_ONCE(hdr->type != RESCTRL_CTRL_DOMAIN))
> +		return;
> +
> +	d = container_of(hdr, struct rdt_domain, hdr);
>  	hw_dom = resctrl_to_arch_dom(d);
>  
>  	cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &d->hdr.cpu_mask);
>  	if (cpumask_empty(&d->hdr.cpu_mask)) {
> -		resctrl_offline_domain(r, d);
> +		resctrl_offline_ctrl_domain(r, d);
>  		list_del(&d->hdr.list);
>  
>  		/*
> @@ -596,6 +654,38 @@ static void domain_remove_cpu(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
>  
>  		return;
>  	}
> +}
> +
> +static void domain_remove_cpu_mon(int cpu, struct rdt_resource *r)
> +{
> +	int id = get_domain_id_from_scope(cpu, r->mon_scope);
> +	struct rdt_hw_domain *hw_dom;
> +	struct rdt_domain_hdr *hdr;
> +	struct rdt_domain *d;
> +
> +	if (id < 0)
> +		return;
> +
> +	hdr = rdt_find_domain(&r->mon_domains, id, NULL);
> +	if (!hdr) {
> +		pr_warn("Couldn't find monitor scope id=%d for CPU %d\n", id, cpu);
> +		return;
> +	}

Similar to above, can this be "Couldn't find monitor domain with id..."?
Can resource name be added here also?

The rest of the patch looks good to me.

Reinette