linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86/intel-uncore-freq: Do not present separate package-die domain

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <8c568307-06f8-46a6-812c-407d7b1dd695@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2024 16:48:55 +0200
From: Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>,
 ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] platform/x86/intel-uncore-freq: Do not present
 separate package-die domain

Hi,

On 8/20/24 10:45 PM, Srinivas Pandruvada wrote:
> The scope of uncore control is per power domain with TPMI.
> 
> There are two types of processor topologies can be presented by CPUID
> extended topology leaf irrespective of the hardware architecture:
> 
> 1. A die is not enumerated in CPUID. In this case there is only one die
> in a package is visible. In this case there can be multiple power domains
> in a single die.
> 2. A power domain in a package is enumerated as a die in CPUID. So
> there is one power domain per die.
> 
> To allow die level controls, the current implementation creates a root
> domain and aggregates all information from power domains in it. This
> is well suited for configuration 1 above.
> 
> But for configuration 2 above, the root domain will present the same
> information as present by power domain. So, no use of aggregating. To
> check the configuration, call topology_max_dies_per_package(). If it is
> more than one, avoid creating root domain.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Srinivas Pandruvada <srinivas.pandruvada@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> This is a forward looking change as TPMI is architectural and should
> support all topologies.

Thank you for your patch, I've applied this patch to my review-hans 
branch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/pdx86/platform-drivers-x86.git/log/?h=review-hans

Note it will show up in my review-hans branch once I've pushed my
local branch there, which might take a while.

Once I've run some tests on this branch the patches there will be
added to the platform-drivers-x86/for-next branch and eventually
will be included in the pdx86 pull-request to Linus for the next
merge-window.

Regards,

Hans



> 
> v2
> Updated commit description as suggested.
> 
>  .../x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-tpmi.c     | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-tpmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-tpmi.c
> index 2016acf44f6a..e6047fbbea76 100644
> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-tpmi.c
> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/intel/uncore-frequency/uncore-frequency-tpmi.c
> @@ -557,6 +557,9 @@ static int uncore_probe(struct auxiliary_device *auxdev, const struct auxiliary_
>  
>  	auxiliary_set_drvdata(auxdev, tpmi_uncore);
>  
> +	if (topology_max_dies_per_package() > 1)
> +		return 0;
> +
>  	tpmi_uncore->root_cluster.root_domain = true;
>  	tpmi_uncore->root_cluster.uncore_root = tpmi_uncore;
>  
> @@ -580,7 +583,9 @@ static void uncore_remove(struct auxiliary_device *auxdev)
>  {
>  	struct tpmi_uncore_struct *tpmi_uncore = auxiliary_get_drvdata(auxdev);
>  
> -	uncore_freq_remove_die_entry(&tpmi_uncore->root_cluster.uncore_data);
> +	if (tpmi_uncore->root_cluster.root_domain)
> +		uncore_freq_remove_die_entry(&tpmi_uncore->root_cluster.uncore_data);
> +
>  	remove_cluster_entries(tpmi_uncore);
>  
>  	uncore_freq_common_exit();