lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Apr]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 3/4] arch_topology: Remove early cacheinfo error message
From


On 4/13/23 12:02, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 11:14:33AM +0200, Pierre Gondois wrote:
>> fetch_cache_info() tries to get the number of cache leaves/levels
>> for each CPU in order to pre-allocate memory for cacheinfo struct.
>> Allocating this memory later triggers a:
>> 'BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context'
>> in PREEMPT_RT kernels.
>>
>> If there is no cache related information available in DT or ACPI,
>> fetch_cache_info() fails and an error message is printed:
>> 'Early cacheinfo failed, ret = ...'
>>
>> Not having cache information should be a valid configuration.
>> Remove the error message if fetch_cache_info() fails.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Conor Dooley <conor@kernel.org>
>
> Not that it really matters for suggested-by, and there's no way really
> for you to know, but the corporate overlords prefer:
> s/conor@kernel.org/conor.dooley@microchip.com/
>
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230404-hatred-swimmer-6fecdf33b57a@spud/
>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 4 +---
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> index b1c1dd38ab01..1f071eaede5b 100644
>> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
>> @@ -843,10 +843,8 @@ void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
>>
>> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> ret = fetch_cache_info(cpu);
>> - if (ret) {
>> - pr_err("Early cacheinfo failed, ret = %d\n", ret);
>
> Hmm do you really want to remove the print altogether? This can fail
> with -EINVAL and -ENOMEM too, so should we just check for
> | if (ret && ret != -ENOENT)
> instead, since in the other cases it really did fail?

I think [PATCH 2/4] requires the following update in this case:

--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -288,8 +288,10 @@ int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
struct device_node *prev = NULL;
unsigned int levels = 0, leaves, level;

- if (!of_check_cache_nodes(np))
- goto err_out;
+ if (!of_check_cache_nodes(np)) {
+ of_node_put(np);
+ return -ENOENT;
+ }

leaves = of_count_cache_leaves(np);
if (leaves > 0)
Is it ok to do this and keep your Reviewed-by ?

Thanks for the review,
Regards,
Pierre

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-04-13 19:07    [W:0.052 / U:0.672 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site