On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote:
Subject: x86/intel_rdt: schemata file support for MBA prepare
I have no idea what MBA prepare is. Is that yet another variant aside of
MBE?
> Add support to introduce generic APIs for control validation and writing
> QOS_MSRs for RDT resources. The control validation api is meant to
> validate the control values like cache bit mask for CAT and memory b/w
> percentage for MBA. A resource generic display format is also added and
> used for the resources depending on whether its displayed in
> hex/decimal.
The usual unpenetratable mess of random sentences lumped together.
> diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/intel_rdt.h
> b/arch/x86/include/asm/intel_rdt.h
> index 24de64c..8748b0d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/intel_rdt.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/intel_rdt.h
> @@ -77,6 +77,9 @@ struct rftype {
> * @default_ctrl: Specifies default cache cbm or mem b/w percent.
> * @min_cbm_bits: Minimum number of consecutive bits to be set
> * in a cache bit mask
> + * @format_str: Per resource format string to show domain val
Can you please spell out words in comments instead of using random
abbreviations just as you see fit?
> + * @parse_ctrlval: Per resource API to parse the ctrl values
That's not an API. That's a function pointer.
> + * @msr_update: API to update QOS MSRs
Ditto.
> * @info_files: resctrl info files for the resource
> * @infofiles_len: Number of info files
> * @max_delay: Max throttle delay. Delay is the
> hardware
> @@ -105,6 +108,9 @@ struct rdt_resource {
> int cbm_len;
> int min_cbm_bits;
> u32 default_ctrl;
> + const char *format_str;
> + int (*parse_ctrlval) (char *buf, struct rdt_resource *r);
> + void (*msr_update) (void *a1, void *a2, struct rdt_resource *r);
void *a1, *a2? Dammit, both implementations (CAT and MBA) use the same
types. This just avoids type safety which does not magically come back by
your completely nonsensical typecasts inside the callback implementations.
> +void cqm_wrmsr(void *a1, void *a2, struct rdt_resource *r)
And this is global because it's only used in this file, right?
> +{
> + struct rdt_domain *d = (struct rdt_domain *)a2;
> + struct msr_param *m = (struct msr_param *)a1;
Oh well......
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = m->low; i < m->high; i++) {
> + int idx = cbm_idx(r, i);
> +
> + wrmsrl(r->msr_base + idx, d->ctrl_val[i]);
> + }
> +}
> -static bool cbm_validate(unsigned long var, struct rdt_resource *r)
> +static int cbm_validate(char *buf, unsigned long *data, struct rdt_resource
> *r)
> {
> - unsigned long first_bit, zero_bit;
> + unsigned long first_bit, zero_bit, var;
> + int ret;
> +
> + ret = kstrtoul(buf, 16, &var);
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
>
> if (var == 0 || var > r->default_ctrl)
> - return false;
> + return -EINVAL;
So you change this function and the whole call chain to return either
-EINVAL or 0 instead of false/true.
And then you treat the integer return value as boolean on the call site
again:
> @@ -90,7 +95,7 @@ static int parse_line(char *line, struct rdt_resource *r)
> id = strsep(&dom, "=");
> if (kstrtoul(id, 10, &dom_id) || dom_id != d->id)
> return -EINVAL;
> - if (parse_cbm(dom, r))
> + if (r->parse_ctrlval(dom, r))
> return -EINVAL;
What's the purpose of this exercise? Annoying reviewers or what?
Thanks,
tglx
