| Message ID | 20240416031438.7637-1-cuiyunhui@bytedance.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v3,1/3] riscv: cacheinfo: remove the useless parameter (node) of ci_leaf_init() | expand |
Hi, Other than a comment in 2/3 this all (patches 1-3) looks sane to me. So: Reviewed-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> Thanks, On 4/15/24 22:14, Yunhui Cui wrote: > The implementation of the ci_leaf_init() function body and the caller > do not use the input parameter (struct device_node *node), so remove it. > > Fixes: 6a24915145c9 ("Revert "riscv: Set more data to cacheinfo"") > Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> > --- > arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 13 ++++++------- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > index 09e9b88110d1..30a6878287ad 100644 > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > @@ -64,7 +64,6 @@ uintptr_t get_cache_geometry(u32 level, enum cache_type type) > } > > static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, > - struct device_node *node, > enum cache_type type, unsigned int level) > { > this_leaf->level = level; > @@ -80,11 +79,11 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) > int levels = 1, level = 1; > > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size")) > - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size")) > - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "d-cache-size")) > - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); > > prev = np; > while ((np = of_find_next_cache_node(np))) { > @@ -97,11 +96,11 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) > if (level <= levels) > break; > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size")) > - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size")) > - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); > if (of_property_read_bool(np, "d-cache-size")) > - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); > + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); > levels = level; > } > of_node_put(np);
Hi Jeremy, On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 4:04 AM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > > On 4/15/24 22:14, Yunhui Cui wrote: > > Before cacheinfo can be built correctly, we need to initialize level > > and type. Since RSIC-V currently does not have a register group that > > describes cache-related attributes like ARM64, we cannot obtain them > > directly, so now we obtain cache leaves from the ACPI PPTT table > > (acpi_get_cache_info()) and set the cache type through split_levels. > > > > Suggested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> > > Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> > > --- > > arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > > index 30a6878287ad..dc5fb70362f1 100644 > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > > @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > > #include <linux/cpu.h> > > #include <linux/of.h> > > #include <asm/cacheinfo.h> > > +#include <linux/acpi.h> > > > > static struct riscv_cacheinfo_ops *rv_cache_ops; > > > > @@ -78,6 +79,25 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) > > struct device_node *prev = NULL; > > int levels = 1, level = 1; > > > > + if (!acpi_disabled) { > > + int ret, idx, fw_levels, split_levels; > > + > > + ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &fw_levels, &split_levels); > > + if (ret) > > + return ret; > > + > > + for (idx = 0; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels && > > + idx < this_cpu_ci->num_leaves; idx++, level++) { > > AFAIK the purpose of idx here it to assure that the number of cache > leaves is not overflowing. But right below we are utilizing two of them > at once, so this check isn't correct. OTOH, since its allocated as > levels + split_levels I don't think its actually possible for this to > cause a problem. Might be worthwhile to just hoist it before the loop > and revalidate the total leaves about to be utilized. > Do you mean to modify the logic as follows to make it more complete? for (idx = 0; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels && idx < this_cpu_ci->num_leaves; level++) { if (level <= split_levels) { ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); idx++; ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); idx++; } else { ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); idx++; } } Thanks, Yunhui
Hi, On 4/16/24 22:15, yunhui cui wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 4:04 AM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> On 4/15/24 22:14, Yunhui Cui wrote: >>> Before cacheinfo can be built correctly, we need to initialize level >>> and type. Since RSIC-V currently does not have a register group that >>> describes cache-related attributes like ARM64, we cannot obtain them >>> directly, so now we obtain cache leaves from the ACPI PPTT table >>> (acpi_get_cache_info()) and set the cache type through split_levels. >>> >>> Suggested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> >>> Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> >>> --- >>> arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c >>> index 30a6878287ad..dc5fb70362f1 100644 >>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c >>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c >>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ >>> #include <linux/cpu.h> >>> #include <linux/of.h> >>> #include <asm/cacheinfo.h> >>> +#include <linux/acpi.h> >>> >>> static struct riscv_cacheinfo_ops *rv_cache_ops; >>> >>> @@ -78,6 +79,25 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) >>> struct device_node *prev = NULL; >>> int levels = 1, level = 1; >>> >>> + if (!acpi_disabled) { >>> + int ret, idx, fw_levels, split_levels; >>> + >>> + ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &fw_levels, &split_levels); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >>> + >>> + for (idx = 0; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels && >>> + idx < this_cpu_ci->num_leaves; idx++, level++) { >> >> AFAIK the purpose of idx here it to assure that the number of cache >> leaves is not overflowing. But right below we are utilizing two of them >> at once, so this check isn't correct. OTOH, since its allocated as >> levels + split_levels I don't think its actually possible for this to >> cause a problem. Might be worthwhile to just hoist it before the loop >> and revalidate the total leaves about to be utilized. >> I think I was suggesting something along the lines of: BUG_ON((split_levels > fw_levels) || (split_levels + fw_levels > this_cpu_ci->num_leaves)); Then removing idx entirely. ex: for (; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels; level++) ... > > Do you mean to modify the logic as follows to make it more complete? Sure that is one way to do it, but then you need to probably repeat the idx check: > for (idx = 0; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels && > idx < this_cpu_ci->num_leaves; level++) { > if (level <= split_levels) { > ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); > idx++; if (idx >= this_cpu_ci->num_leaves) break; > ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); > idx++; > } else { > ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > idx++; > } > }
Hi Jeremy, On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:00 PM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 4/16/24 22:15, yunhui cui wrote: > > Hi Jeremy, > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 4:04 AM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> > >> On 4/15/24 22:14, Yunhui Cui wrote: > >>> Before cacheinfo can be built correctly, we need to initialize level > >>> and type. Since RSIC-V currently does not have a register group that > >>> describes cache-related attributes like ARM64, we cannot obtain them > >>> directly, so now we obtain cache leaves from the ACPI PPTT table > >>> (acpi_get_cache_info()) and set the cache type through split_levels. > >>> > >>> Suggested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> > >>> Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> > >>> Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> > >>> --- > >>> arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > >>> index 30a6878287ad..dc5fb70362f1 100644 > >>> --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > >>> +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c > >>> @@ -6,6 +6,7 @@ > >>> #include <linux/cpu.h> > >>> #include <linux/of.h> > >>> #include <asm/cacheinfo.h> > >>> +#include <linux/acpi.h> > >>> > >>> static struct riscv_cacheinfo_ops *rv_cache_ops; > >>> > >>> @@ -78,6 +79,25 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) > >>> struct device_node *prev = NULL; > >>> int levels = 1, level = 1; > >>> > >>> + if (!acpi_disabled) { > >>> + int ret, idx, fw_levels, split_levels; > >>> + > >>> + ret = acpi_get_cache_info(cpu, &fw_levels, &split_levels); > >>> + if (ret) > >>> + return ret; > >>> + > >>> + for (idx = 0; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels && > >>> + idx < this_cpu_ci->num_leaves; idx++, level++) { > >> > >> AFAIK the purpose of idx here it to assure that the number of cache > >> leaves is not overflowing. But right below we are utilizing two of them > >> at once, so this check isn't correct. OTOH, since its allocated as > >> levels + split_levels I don't think its actually possible for this to > >> cause a problem. Might be worthwhile to just hoist it before the loop > >> and revalidate the total leaves about to be utilized. > >> > > I think I was suggesting something along the lines of: > > BUG_ON((split_levels > fw_levels) || (split_levels + fw_levels > > this_cpu_ci->num_leaves)); > > Then removing idx entirely. ex: Okay, I'll follow yours and update v4. > for (; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels; level++) > ... > > > > Do you mean to modify the logic as follows to make it more complete? > Sure that is one way to do it, but then you need to probably repeat the > idx check: > > for (idx = 0; level <= this_cpu_ci->num_levels && > > idx < this_cpu_ci->num_leaves; level++) { > > if (level <= split_levels) { > > ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); > > idx++; > if (idx >= this_cpu_ci->num_leaves) break; > > ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); > > idx++; > > } else { > > ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); > > idx++; > > } > > } > > > Thanks, Yunhui
diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c index 09e9b88110d1..30a6878287ad 100644 --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c @@ -64,7 +64,6 @@ uintptr_t get_cache_geometry(u32 level, enum cache_type type) } static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf, - struct device_node *node, enum cache_type type, unsigned int level) { this_leaf->level = level; @@ -80,11 +79,11 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) int levels = 1, level = 1; if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size")) - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size")) - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); if (of_property_read_bool(np, "d-cache-size")) - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); prev = np; while ((np = of_find_next_cache_node(np))) { @@ -97,11 +96,11 @@ int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu) if (level <= levels) break; if (of_property_read_bool(np, "cache-size")) - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED, level); if (of_property_read_bool(np, "i-cache-size")) - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_INST, level); if (of_property_read_bool(np, "d-cache-size")) - ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, np, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); + ci_leaf_init(this_leaf++, CACHE_TYPE_DATA, level); levels = level; } of_node_put(np);
The implementation of the ci_leaf_init() function body and the caller do not use the input parameter (struct device_node *node), so remove it. Fixes: 6a24915145c9 ("Revert "riscv: Set more data to cacheinfo"") Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@bytedance.com> --- arch/riscv/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 13 ++++++------- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)