[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <567bd687-a69f-46fb-ab19-3f8d95c5e798@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 19:39:07 -0700
From: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To: <babu.moger@....com>, "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC: "corbet@....net" <corbet@....net>, "Yu, Fenghua" <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>, "mingo@...hat.com"
<mingo@...hat.com>, "bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, "x86@...nel.org"
<x86@...nel.org>, "hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>, "paulmck@...nel.org"
<paulmck@...nel.org>, "rdunlap@...radead.org" <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
"tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>, "peterz@...radead.org"
<peterz@...radead.org>, "yanjiewtw@...il.com" <yanjiewtw@...il.com>,
"kim.phillips@....com" <kim.phillips@....com>, "lukas.bulwahn@...il.com"
<lukas.bulwahn@...il.com>, "seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"jmattson@...gle.com" <jmattson@...gle.com>, "leitao@...ian.org"
<leitao@...ian.org>, "jpoimboe@...nel.org" <jpoimboe@...nel.org>, "Edgecombe,
Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>, "kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com"
<kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>, "Joseph, Jithu" <jithu.joseph@...el.com>,
"Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@...el.com>, "kan.liang@...ux.intel.com"
<kan.liang@...ux.intel.com>, "daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com"
<daniel.sneddon@...ux.intel.com>, "pbonzini@...hat.com"
<pbonzini@...hat.com>, "sandipan.das@....com" <sandipan.das@....com>,
"ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com" <ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>,
"peternewman@...gle.com" <peternewman@...gle.com>, "Wieczor-Retman, Maciej"
<maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>, "linux-doc@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org"
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Eranian, Stephane" <eranian@...gle.com>,
"james.morse@....com" <james.morse@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 19/25] x86/resctrl: Auto assign/unassign counters when
mbm_cntr_assign is enabled
Hi Babu,
On 10/14/24 9:35 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> On 12/31/69 18:00, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>
>> It is still the case that callers don't care about the return value.
>
> That is correct.
>
Are you planning to change this? I think Tony has a good point that since
assignment failures do not matter it unnecessarily complicates the code to
have rdtgroup_assign_cntrs() return failure.
I also think the internals of rdtgroup_assign_cntrs() deserve a closer look.
I assume that error handling within rdtgroup_assign_cntrs() was created with
ABMC in mind. When only considering ABMC then the only reason why
rdtgroup_assign_cntr_event() could fail is if the system ran out of counters
and then indeed it makes no sense to attempt another call to rdtgroup_assign_cntr_event().
Now that the resctrl fs/arch split is clear the implementation does indeed expose
another opportunity for failure ... if the arch callback, resctrl_arch_config_cntr()
fails. It could thus be possible for the first rdtgroup_assign_cntr_event() to fail
while the second succeeds. Earlier [1], Tony suggested to, within rdtgroup_assign_cntrs(),
remove the local ret variable and have it return void. This sounds good to me.
When doing so a function comment explaining the usage will be helpful.
I also think that rdtgroup_unassign_cntrs() deserves similar scrutiny. Even more
so since I do not think that the second rdtgroup_unassign_cntr_event()
should be prevented from running if the first rdtgroup_unassign_cntr_event() fails.
Reinette
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/ZwldvDBjEA3TSw2k@agluck-desk3.sc.intel.com/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists