Hi Jeremy,
On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 10:00 PM Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Suggested-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yunhui Cui <cuiyunhui@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> 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
