| Message ID | 1507706438-24486-1-git-send-email-yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
>>> On 11.10.17 at 09:20, <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com> wrote: > --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c > @@ -1111,25 +1111,43 @@ static unsigned int get_socket_cpu(unsigned int socket) > struct cos_write_info > { > unsigned int cos; > - struct feat_node *feature; > const uint32_t *val; > - const struct feat_props *props; > + unsigned int array_len; > }; The addition wants to go into the hole after "cos". > static void do_write_psr_msrs(void *data) > { > - const struct cos_write_info *info = data; > - struct feat_node *feat = info->feature; > - const struct feat_props *props = info->props; > - unsigned int i, cos = info->cos, cos_num = props->cos_num; > + struct cos_write_info *info = data; const > + unsigned int i, index = 0, cos = info->cos; > + struct psr_socket_info *socket_info = const > + get_socket_info(cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id())); > > - for ( i = 0; i < cos_num; i++ ) > + /* > + * Iterate all featuers to write different value (not same as MSR) for > + * each feature. > + */ > + for ( i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feat_props); i++ ) > { > - if ( feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + i] != info->val[i] ) > + struct feat_node *feat = socket_info->features[i]; > + const struct feat_props *props = feat_props[i]; > + unsigned int cos_num, j; > + > + if ( !feat || !props ) > + continue; > + > + cos_num = props->cos_num; > + ASSERT(info->array_len >= index + cos_num); While this transformation from the original -ENOSPC return looks to be correct, but not obviously so, it would have been a good idea to mention this in the commit message. After all the above can be correct only if the original -ENOSPC return path could have been an ASSERT() as well. > + for ( j = 0; j < cos_num; j++ ) > { > - feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + i] = info->val[i]; > - props->write_msr(cos, info->val[i], props->type[i]); > + if ( feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + j] != info->val[index + j] ) > + { > + feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + j] = info->val[index + j]; > + props->write_msr(cos, info->val[index + j], props->type[j]); > + } > } > + > + index += cos_num; Looks like I only meant to comment on the uses of index above: If you incremented it alongside j, you could use just index in the respective array accesses, and you'd avoid the last statement above altogether. In the interest of getting the patch in I'll see to make the adjustments myself. Please double check the result in case I end up committing what I've come up with. Jan
Many thanks for the changes! The changes look good to me and pass the test. On 17-10-11 06:06:49, Jan Beulich wrote: > >>> On 11.10.17 at 09:20, <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c > > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c > > @@ -1111,25 +1111,43 @@ static unsigned int get_socket_cpu(unsigned int socket) > > struct cos_write_info > > { > > unsigned int cos; > > - struct feat_node *feature; > > const uint32_t *val; > > - const struct feat_props *props; > > + unsigned int array_len; > > }; > > The addition wants to go into the hole after "cos". > > > static void do_write_psr_msrs(void *data) > > { > > - const struct cos_write_info *info = data; > > - struct feat_node *feat = info->feature; > > - const struct feat_props *props = info->props; > > - unsigned int i, cos = info->cos, cos_num = props->cos_num; > > + struct cos_write_info *info = data; > > const > > > + unsigned int i, index = 0, cos = info->cos; > > + struct psr_socket_info *socket_info = > > const > > > + get_socket_info(cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id())); > > > > - for ( i = 0; i < cos_num; i++ ) > > + /* > > + * Iterate all featuers to write different value (not same as MSR) for > > + * each feature. > > + */ > > + for ( i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feat_props); i++ ) > > { > > - if ( feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + i] != info->val[i] ) > > + struct feat_node *feat = socket_info->features[i]; > > + const struct feat_props *props = feat_props[i]; > > + unsigned int cos_num, j; > > + > > + if ( !feat || !props ) > > + continue; > > + > > + cos_num = props->cos_num; > > + ASSERT(info->array_len >= index + cos_num); > > While this transformation from the original -ENOSPC return looks to > be correct, but not obviously so, it would have been a good idea > to mention this in the commit message. After all the above can be > correct only if the original -ENOSPC return path could have been > an ASSERT() as well. > > > + for ( j = 0; j < cos_num; j++ ) > > { > > - feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + i] = info->val[i]; > > - props->write_msr(cos, info->val[i], props->type[i]); > > + if ( feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + j] != info->val[index + j] ) > > + { > > + feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + j] = info->val[index + j]; > > + props->write_msr(cos, info->val[index + j], props->type[j]); > > + } > > } > > + > > + index += cos_num; > > Looks like I only meant to comment on the uses of index above: > If you incremented it alongside j, you could use just index in the > respective array accesses, and you'd avoid the last statement > above altogether. > > In the interest of getting the patch in I'll see to make the > adjustments myself. Please double check the result in case I end > up committing what I've come up with. > > Jan
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c index daa2aeb..8936cf7 100644 --- a/xen/arch/x86/psr.c +++ b/xen/arch/x86/psr.c @@ -1111,25 +1111,43 @@ static unsigned int get_socket_cpu(unsigned int socket) struct cos_write_info { unsigned int cos; - struct feat_node *feature; const uint32_t *val; - const struct feat_props *props; + unsigned int array_len; }; static void do_write_psr_msrs(void *data) { - const struct cos_write_info *info = data; - struct feat_node *feat = info->feature; - const struct feat_props *props = info->props; - unsigned int i, cos = info->cos, cos_num = props->cos_num; + struct cos_write_info *info = data; + unsigned int i, index = 0, cos = info->cos; + struct psr_socket_info *socket_info = + get_socket_info(cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id())); - for ( i = 0; i < cos_num; i++ ) + /* + * Iterate all featuers to write different value (not same as MSR) for + * each feature. + */ + for ( i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(feat_props); i++ ) { - if ( feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + i] != info->val[i] ) + struct feat_node *feat = socket_info->features[i]; + const struct feat_props *props = feat_props[i]; + unsigned int cos_num, j; + + if ( !feat || !props ) + continue; + + cos_num = props->cos_num; + ASSERT(info->array_len >= index + cos_num); + + for ( j = 0; j < cos_num; j++ ) { - feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + i] = info->val[i]; - props->write_msr(cos, info->val[i], props->type[i]); + if ( feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + j] != info->val[index + j] ) + { + feat->cos_reg_val[cos * cos_num + j] = info->val[index + j]; + props->write_msr(cos, info->val[index + j], props->type[j]); + } } + + index += cos_num; } } @@ -1137,30 +1155,17 @@ static int write_psr_msrs(unsigned int socket, unsigned int cos, const uint32_t val[], unsigned int array_len, enum psr_feat_type feat_type) { - int ret; struct psr_socket_info *info = get_socket_info(socket); struct cos_write_info data = { .cos = cos, - .feature = info->features[feat_type], - .props = feat_props[feat_type], + .val = val, + .array_len = array_len, }; if ( cos > info->features[feat_type]->cos_max ) return -EINVAL; - /* Skip to the feature's value head. */ - ret = skip_prior_features(&array_len, feat_type); - if ( ret < 0 ) - return ret; - - val += ret; - - if ( array_len < feat_props[feat_type]->cos_num ) - return -ENOSPC; - - data.val = val; - if ( socket == cpu_to_socket(smp_processor_id()) ) do_write_psr_msrs(&data); else
The whole value array is transferred into 'do_write_psr_msrs'. Then, we can write all features values on the cos id into MSRs. Because multiple features may co-exist, we need handle all features to write values of them into a COS register with new COS ID. E.g: 1. L3 CAT and L2 CAT co-exist. 2. Dom1 and Dom2 share the same COS ID (2). The L3 CAT CBM of Dom1 is 0x1ff, the L2 CAT CBM of Dom1 is 0x1f. 3. User wants to change L2 CBM of Dom1 to be 0xf. Because COS ID 2 is used by Dom2 too, we have to pick a new COS ID 3. The values of Dom1 on COS ID 3 are all default values as below: --------- | COS 3 | --------- L3 CAT | 0x7ff | --------- L2 CAT | 0xff | --------- 4. After setting, the L3 CAT CBM value of Dom1 should be kept and the new L2 CAT CBM is set. So, the values on COS ID 3 should be below. --------- | COS 3 | --------- L3 CAT | 0x1ff | --------- L2 CAT | 0xf | --------- Signed-off-by: Yi Sun <yi.y.sun@linux.intel.com> --- CC: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> CC: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com> CC: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com> CC: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com> CC: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com> v5: - remove 'result' and use an ASSERT to handle error case. (suggested by Chao Peng) v4: - remove init of 'result'. (suggested by Roger Pau Monné) - remove 'features' in 'cos_write_info' and get socket info in 'do_write_psr_msrs' to get features array. (suggested by Jan Beulich) - fix a typo in commit message. (suggested by Kent R. Spillner) v3: - add 'result' in 'cos_write_info' to return error code. (suggested by Roger Pau Monné) v2: - fix issues in commit message. (suggested by Roger Pau Monné) - remove unnecessary local variable 'val_array'. (suggested by Roger Pau Monné) --- xen/arch/x86/psr.c | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)