On Wed, 11 May 2016, David Carrillo-Cisneros wrote:
> Expose max_recycle_threshold pmu attribute to user-space.
>
> Reviewed-by: Stephane Eranian <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: David Carrillo-Cisneros <[email protected]>
> ---
> arch/x86/events/intel/cqm.c | 48
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/events/intel/cqm.c b/arch/x86/events/intel/cqm.c
> index 54f219f..225b0c8 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/events/intel/cqm.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/events/intel/cqm.c
> @@ -393,9 +393,57 @@ static struct attribute_group intel_cqm_format_group = {
> .attrs = intel_cqm_formats_attr,
> };
>
> +static ssize_t
> +max_recycle_threshold_show(
> + struct device *dev, struct device_attribute *attr, char *page)
> +{
> + ssize_t rv;
> +
> + monr_hrchy_acquire_mutexes();
> + rv = snprintf(page, PAGE_SIZE - 1, "%u\n",
> + __intel_cqm_max_threshold);
> + monr_hrchy_release_mutexes();
So we acquire a gazillion of mutexes to read a single variable?
> +
> + return rv;
> +}
> +
> +static ssize_t
> +max_recycle_threshold_store(struct device *dev,
> + struct device_attribute *attr,
> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> +{
> + unsigned int bytes;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = kstrtouint(buf, 0, &bytes);
That number is not limited by any means. So 0 ... UINT_MAX is valid, correct?
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + /* Mutex waits for rotation logic in all packages to complete. */
What's wrong with just setting the variable and let it take effect on the next
rotation? That locking here is just pointless. It does not protect anything.
> + monr_hrchy_acquire_mutexes();
> +
> + __intel_cqm_max_threshold = bytes;
> +
> + monr_hrchy_release_mutexes();
Thanks,
tglx
