lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Feb]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 16/20] arm64: Handle shared capability entries
On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 12:32:56PM +0000, Robin Murphy wrote:
> On 08/02/18 12:01, Dave Martin wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:53:52AM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>On 07/02/18 10:39, Dave Martin wrote:
> >>>On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 06:28:03PM +0000, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> >>>>Some capabilities have different criteria for detection and associated
> >>>>actions based on the matching criteria, even though they all share the
> >>>>same capability bit. So far we have used multiple entries with the same
> >>>>capability bit to handle this. This is prone to errors, as the
> >>>>cpu_enable is invoked for each entry, irrespective of whether the
> >>>>detection rule applies to the CPU or not. And also this complicates
> >>>>other helpers, e.g, __this_cpu_has_cap.
> >>>>
> >>>>This patch adds a wrapper entry to cover all the possible variations
> >>>>of a capability and ensures :
> >>>> 1) The capabilitiy is set when at least one of the entry detects
> >>>> 2) Action is only taken for the entries that detects.
> >>>
> >>>I guess this means that where we have a single cpu_enable() method
> >>>but complex match criteria that require multiple entries, then that
> >>>cpu_enable() method might get called multiple times on a given CPU.
> >>
> >>A CPU executes cpu_enable() only for the "matching" entries in the list,
> >>unlike earlier. So as long as there is a single entry "matching" the given
> >>CPU, the cpu_enable() will not be duplicated. May be we *should* mandate
> >>that a CPU cannot be matched by multiple entries.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Could be worth a comment if cpu_enable() methods must be robust
> >>>against this.
> >
> >Could we say something like:
> >
> >"Where a single capability has multiple entries, mutiple cpu_enable()
> >methods may be called if more than one entry matches. Where this is
> >not desired, care should be taken to ensure that the entries are
> >mutually exclusive: for example, two entries for a single capability
> >that match on MIDR should be configured to match MIDR ranges that do
> >not overlap."
> >
> >This is more verbose than I would like however. Maybe there's a simpler
> >way to say it.
>
> If we're not also talking about a capability having mutually exclusive
> enable methods (it doesn't seem so, but I'm not necessarily 100% clear), how
> about:
>
> "If a cpu_enable() method is associated with multiple matches for a single
> capability, care should be taken that either the match criteria are mutually
> exclusive, or that the method is robust against being called multiple
> times."

This is one reason why I wondered if we could pull cpu_enable() out of
the match criteria struct so that we don't duplicate it: in that case
there's no chance of multiple incompatible cpu_enable() methods.

But Suzuki is right that this would be a somewhat invasive change at
this point, and I think it's sufficient to warn about the possibility
of incompatible cpu_enable()s in a comment.

Otherwise, your text sounds good.

Cheers
---Dave

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-02-09 11:05    [W:0.052 / U:10.856 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site