[PATCH V5 4/9] perf/core: Adding PMU driver specific configuration
Alexander Shishkin
alexander.shishkin at linux.intel.com
Mon Aug 22 09:18:50 PDT 2016
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier at linaro.org> writes:
> This patch somewhat mimics the work done on address filters to
> add the infrastructure needed to pass PMU specific HW
> configuration to the driver before a session starts.
Looks like a lot of work to do something that can be taken care of
entirely in userspace. A few comments below.
Btw, please don't forget to CC me on the kernel perf patches.
> +static struct perf_drv_config *
> +perf_drv_config_new(int cpu, struct list_head *drv_config_list)
> +{
> + int node = cpu_to_node(cpu == -1 ? 0 : cpu);
> + struct perf_drv_config *drv_config;
> +
> + drv_config = kzalloc_node(sizeof(*drv_config), GFP_KERNEL, node);
> + if (!drv_config)
> + return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
So it's the only error that this function may return.
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&drv_config->entry);
> + list_add_tail(&drv_config->entry, drv_config_list);
> +
> + return drv_config;
> +}
> +
> +static void free_drv_config_list(struct list_head *drv_config_list)
> +{
> + struct perf_drv_config *drv_config, *itr;
> +
> + list_for_each_entry_safe(drv_config, itr, drv_config_list, entry) {
> + list_del(&drv_config->entry);
> + kfree(drv_config->config);
> + kfree(drv_config->option);
> + kfree(drv_config);
> + }
> +}
> +
> +/* How long does a configuration option really need to be? */
> +#define PERF_DRV_CONFIG_MAX 128
Considering that you're already limiting the entire input buffer to
PAGE_SIZE, this is redundant.
> +
> /*
> - * hrtimer based swevent callback
> + * PMU specific driver configuration as specified from user space.
> + * The data come in the form of an ascii string pushed down to the kernel
> + * using an ioctl() call.
> + *
> + * Two format are accepted: a singleton and in pairs. All of the following
> + * are valid: cfg1, cfg2=config2, cfg3=anything_is_possible.
What's the difference between 'config2' and 'anything_is_possible'?
> + *
> + * It is up to each PMU driver to make sure they can work with the
> + * submitted configurables.
> */
> +static int
> +perf_event_parse_drv_config(struct perf_event *event, char *options,
> + struct list_head *drv_config_list)
> +{
> + char *token;
> + int ret;
> + struct perf_drv_config *drv_config;
> +
> + /*
> + * First split the @options string in nibbles. Using the above
> + * example "cfg1", "cfg2=option2" and "cfg3=anything_is_possible"
"cfg2=config2", if you're referring to the comment at the top.
> + * will be processed.
> + */
> + while ((token = strsep(&options, ",")) != NULL) {
> + char *nibble, *config, *option;
> +
> + if (!*token)
> + continue;
So empty configs are valid?
> +
> + /* Allocate a new driver config structure and queue it. */
> + drv_config = perf_drv_config_new(event->cpu, drv_config_list);
> + if (IS_ERR(drv_config)) {
> + ret = PTR_ERR(drv_config);
We know it's ENOMEM, no need for ERR_PTR()->PTR_ERR().
> + goto fail;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * The nibbles are either a "config" or a "config=option"
> + * pair. First get the config part. Since strsep() sets
> + * @nibble to the next valid token, nibble will be equal to
> + * the option part or NULL after the first call.
> + */
> + nibble = token;
> + config = strsep(&nibble, "=");
> + option = nibble;
So '@,=,=,=,=,=,=,=,=,' is a valid driver configuration, by the looks of
it?
> +
> + /* This shouldn't be happening */
Indeed.
> + if (!config) {
> + ret = -EINVAL;
> + goto fail;
> + }
Regards,
--
Alex
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list