Re: [PATCH v2 12/33] x86/intel_rdt: Intel haswell Cache Allocation enumeration

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Thu, 8 Sep 2016, Fenghua Yu wrote:
>  /*
> + * Minimum bits required in Cache bitmask.
> + */
> +unsigned int min_bitmask_len = 1;

Global variable w/o an corresponding declaration in a header file?

> +/*
>   * Mask of CPUs for writing CBM values. We only need one CPU per-socket.
>   */
>  static cpumask_t rdt_cpumask;
> @@ -51,6 +55,42 @@ struct rdt_remote_data {
>  	u64 val;
>  };
>  
> +/*
> + * cache_alloc_hsw_probe() - Have to probe for Intel haswell server CPUs
> + * as it does not have CPUID enumeration support for Cache allocation.
> + *
> + * Probes by writing to the high 32 bits(CLOSid) of the IA32_PQR_MSR and
> + * testing if the bits stick. Max CLOSids is always 4 and max cbm length
> + * is always 20 on hsw server parts. The minimum cache bitmask length
> + * allowed for HSW server is always 2 bits. Hardcode all of them.
> + */
> +static inline bool cache_alloc_hsw_probe(void)
> +{
> +	u32 l, h_old, h_new, h_tmp;
> +
> +	if (rdmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, &l, &h_old))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Default value is always 0 if feature is present.
> +	 */
> +	h_tmp = h_old ^ 0x1U;
> +	if (wrmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, l, h_tmp) ||
> +	    rdmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, &l, &h_new))
> +		return false;
> +
> +	if (h_tmp != h_new)
> +		return false;
> +
> +	wrmsr_safe(MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC, l, h_old);
> +
> +	boot_cpu_data.x86_cache_max_closid = 4;
> +	boot_cpu_data.x86_cache_max_cbm_len = 20;
> +	min_bitmask_len = 2;

So min_bitmask_len gets updated here, but it's not used anywhere. Neither
that cache_alloc_hsw_probe() function is used ....

> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>  void __intel_rdt_sched_in(void *dummy)
>  {
>  	struct intel_pqr_state *state = this_cpu_ptr(&pqr_state);
> @@ -225,9 +265,6 @@ static int __init intel_rdt_late_init(void)
>  	u32 maxid;
>  	int err = 0, size, i;
>  
> -	if (!cpu_has(c, X86_FEATURE_CAT_L3))
> -		return -ENODEV;

And we now initialize the thing unconditionally no matter whether the
feature is available or not. Interesting.

The changelog does tell a different story than the patch ....

Thanks,

	tglx