[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1422ff0e-6aa3-42de-ba12-4dff32e7505d@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 18:05:50 +0100
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>,
Rohit Mathew <rohit.mathew@....com>,
Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>, Zeng Heng
<zengheng4@...wei.com>, Lecopzer Chen <lecopzerc@...dia.com>,
Carl Worth <carl@...amperecomputing.com>,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>, lcherian@...vell.com,
bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com, tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>, peternewman@...gle.com,
dfustini@...libre.com, amitsinght@...vell.com,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Rex Nie <rex.nie@...uarmicro.com>,
Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>, Koba Ko <kobak@...dia.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 06/36] ACPI / PPTT: Stop acpi_count_levels() expecting
callers to clear levels
Hi Jonathan,
On 16/07/2025 16:51, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2025 18:36:18 +0000
> James Morse <james.morse@....com> wrote:
>
>> acpi_count_levels() passes the number of levels back via a pointer argument.
>> It also passes this to acpi_find_cache_level() as the starting_level, and
>> preserves this value as it walks up the cpu_node tree counting the levels.
>>
>> The only caller acpi_get_cache_info() happens to have already initialised
>> levels to zero, which acpi_count_levels() depends on to get the correct
>> result.
>>
>> Explicitly zero the levels variable, so the count always starts at zero.
>> This saves any additional callers having to work out they need to do this.
> This is all a bit fiddly as we now end up with that initialized in various
> different places.
I've debugged this one a few times, (turns out I'm forgetful) ... I figured doing this
was better than adding a comment to warn others.
As its static, I figured it was something the compiler can optimise out if there is a
duplicate. (I couldn't find any initialisation I could remove because of this)
> Perhaps simpler to have acpi_count_levels() return the
> number of levels rather than void. Then return number of levels rather
> than 0 on success from acpi_get_cache_info(). Negative error codes used
> for failure just like now.
>
> That would leave only a local variable in acpi_count_levels being
> initialized to 0 and passed to acpi_find_cache_level() before being
> returned when the loop terminates.
>
> I think that sequence then makes it such that we can't fail to
> initialize it at without the compiler noticing and screaming.
>
> Requires a few changes from if (ret) to if (ret < 0) at callers
> of acpi_get_cache_info() but looks simple (says the person who
> hasn't actually coded it!)
Breaking the symmetry between levels and split_levels is an argument against this.
I think within pptt.c this is fine, because 'level's is used internally as
'starting_level', and this expectation it was initialised to zero is a nasty surprise.
But exposing that from acpi_get_cache_info() looks stranger - and would need to touch
users in cacheinfo, arm64, riscv.
I've updated acpi_count_levels() to look as you describe - that at least makes it harder
to miss this in future. (not sure whether it saves anything)
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> index 13619b1b821b..13ca2eee3b98 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ acpi_find_cache_level(struct acpi_table_header *table_hdr,
>> * @cpu_node: processor node we wish to count caches for
>> * @levels: Number of levels if success.
>> * @split_levels: Number of split cache levels (data/instruction) if
>> - * success. Can by NULL.
>> + * success. Can be NULL.
>
> Grumpy reviewer hat. Unrelated cleanup up - good to have but not in this patch where
> it's a distraction.
I was hoping diff would keep it as one hunk. Happy to leave it tyopd!
Thanks,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists