[PATCH v2 04/29] ACPI / PPTT: Add a helper to fill a cpumask from a cache_id
James Morse
james.morse at arm.com
Fri Oct 10 09:55:49 PDT 2025
Hi Fenghua,
On 02/10/2025 06:03, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On 9/10/25 13:42, James Morse wrote:
>> MPAM identifies CPUs by the cache_id in the PPTT cache structure.
>>
>> The driver needs to know which CPUs are associated with the cache.
>> The CPUs may not all be online, so cacheinfo does not have the
>> information.
>>
>> Add a helper to pull this information out of the PPTT.
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> index c5f2a51d280b..c379a9952b00 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> @@ -966,3 +966,62 @@ int find_acpi_cache_level_from_id(u32 cache_id)
>> +/**
>> + * acpi_pptt_get_cpumask_from_cache_id() - Get the cpus associated with the
>> + * specified cache
>> + * @cache_id: The id field of the unified cache
>> + * @cpus: Where to build the cpumask
>> + *
>> + * Determine which CPUs are below this cache in the PPTT. This allows the property
>> + * to be found even if the CPUs are offline.
>> + *
>> + * The PPTT table must be rev 3 or later,
>> + *
>> + * Return: -ENOENT if the PPTT doesn't exist, or the cache cannot be found.
>> + * Otherwise returns 0 and sets the cpus in the provided cpumask.
>> + */
>> +int acpi_pptt_get_cpumask_from_cache_id(u32 cache_id, cpumask_t *cpus)
>> +{
>> + u32 acpi_cpu_id;
>> + int level, cpu, num_levels;
>> + struct acpi_pptt_cache *cache;
>> + struct acpi_pptt_cache_v1 *cache_v1;
>> + struct acpi_pptt_processor *cpu_node;
>> + struct acpi_table_header *table __free(acpi_table) =
>> acpi_get_table_ret(ACPI_SIG_PPTT, 0);
>> +
>> + cpumask_clear(cpus);
>> +
>> + if (IS_ERR(table))
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> + if (table->revision < 3)
>> + return -ENOENT;
>> +
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + acpi_cpu_id = get_acpi_id_for_cpu(cpu);
>> + cpu_node = acpi_find_processor_node(table, acpi_cpu_id);
>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!cpu_node))
>> + continue;
>> + num_levels = acpi_count_levels(table, cpu_node, NULL);
>> +
>> + /* Start at 1 for L1 */
>> + for (level = 1; level <= num_levels; level++) {
>> + cache = acpi_find_cache_node(table, acpi_cpu_id,
>> + ACPI_PPTT_CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED,
>> + level, &cpu_node);
>> + if (!cache)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + cache_v1 = ACPI_ADD_PTR(struct acpi_pptt_cache_v1,
>> + cache,
>> + sizeof(struct acpi_pptt_cache));
>> +
>> + if (cache->flags & ACPI_PPTT_CACHE_ID_VALID &&
>> + cache_v1->cache_id == cache_id)
>> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
>
> This function is almost identical to find_acpi_cache_level_from_id() defined in patch #3.
Yes - there is already a lot of repetition in this file.
I'd previously suggested to Jeremy L to ahve a walker with callbacks, but he felt that
made it harder to read.
Jonathan suggested a for_each_acpi_pptt_entry() helper:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/morse/linux.git/commit/?h=pptt/for_each_pptt_entry/v0&id=353ceeba3d39c6b6a10eeb1a59c49649cdf719d8
I'm avoiding including that here as its ~30 patches already!
> To reduce code size and complexity, it's better to define a common helper to server both
> of the two functions.
>
> e.g. define a helper acpi_pptt_get_level_cpumask_from_cache_id(u32 cache_id, int *lvl,
> cpu_mask_t *cpus)
>
> This helper has the same code body to traverse the cache levels for all CPUs as
> find_acpi_cache_level_from_id() and acpi_pptt_get_cpumask_from_cache_id(). The major
> difference is here:
>
> + if (cache->flags & ACPI_PPTT_CACHE_ID_VALID &&
> + cache_v1->cache_id == cache_id) {
> + if (cpus)
> + cpumask_set_cpu(cpu, cpus);
> + if ((level) {
> + *lvl = level;
> + return 0;
> + }
>
> Then simplify the two callers as follows:
> int find_acpi_cache_level_from_id(u32 cache_id)
> {
> int level;
> int err = acpi_pptt_get_level_cpumask_from_cache_id(cache_id, &level, NULL);
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> return level;
> }
>
> int acpi_pptt_get_cpumask_from_cache_id(u32 cache_id, cpumask_t *cpus)
> {
> return acpi_pptt_get_level_cpumask_from_cache_id(cache_id, NULL, cpus);
> }
>
You've combined two functions that both walk the table (there are quiet a few more in this
file) - but they look for very different things. Your common helper is going to be much
more complex than either of these standalone.
I think Jonathan's for-each helper is the best path forward, that reduces the boiler plate
leaving the relevant differences.
Thanks,
James
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list