Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-56814-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240206095902.56406-1-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
 <20240206095902.56406-3-yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> <CAD=FV=V8VcmEDDpaWZi40j5dkP+HyBPFr=D_mKFG-YmXTpa_AA@mail.gmail.com>
 <8cf08d4a-fa4b-41cb-8bfa-75387122b194@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <8cf08d4a-fa4b-41cb-8bfa-75387122b194@linux.alibaba.com>
From: Doug Anderson <dianders@chromium.org>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 09:14:33 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD=FV=XVxaBGWa8apqyhd2KAPFtF7asmPuXvHhv++oj+oKLNsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv5 2/3] watchdog/softlockup: report the most frequent interrupts
To: Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, pmladek@suse.com, kernelfans@gmail.com, 
	liusong@linux.alibaba.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi,

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 10:19=E2=80=AFPM Bitao Hu <yaoma@linux.alibaba.com> =
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> >> +static void start_counting_irqs(void)
> >> +{
> >> +       int i;
> >> +       struct irq_desc *desc;
> >> +       u32 *counts =3D __this_cpu_read(hardirq_counts);
> >> +       int cpu =3D smp_processor_id();
> >> +
> >> +       if (!test_bit(cpu, softlockup_hardirq_cpus)) {
> >
> > I don't think you need "softlockup_hardirq_cpus", do you? Just read
> > "actual_nr_irqs" and see if it's non-zero? ...or read "hardirq_counts"
> > and see if it's non-NULL?
> Sure, the existing variables are sufficient for making a determination.
> And may be I should swap it to make the decision logic here clearer,
> like this (untested)?
>
> bool is_counting_started(void)
> {
>      return !!__this_cpu_read(hardirq_counts);
> }
>
> if (!is_counting_started()) {

If you insist I guess I wouldn't object, but I don't feel it's
necessary. The whole point is just to know if you've already allocated
memory, right? ...and just checking to see if the pointer is non-NULL
or the array-size is non-zero feels pretty clear to me.


> >> +                       /*
> >> +                        * We need to bounds-check in case someone on =
a different CPU
> >> +                        * expanded nr_irqs.
> >> +                        */
> >> +                       if (i < __this_cpu_read(actual_nr_irqs))
> >> +                               counts_diff =3D desc->kstat_irqs ?
> >> +                                       *this_cpu_ptr(desc->kstat_irqs=
) - counts[i] : 0;
> >> +                       else
> >> +                               counts_diff =3D desc->kstat_irqs ?
> >> +                                       *this_cpu_ptr(desc->kstat_irqs=
) : 0;
> >
> > Why do you need to test "kstat_irqs" for 0?
> Although "alloc_desc" wil allocate both "desc" and "kstat_irqs" at the
> same time, I refer to the usage of "kstat_irqs" in "show_interrupts"
> from kernel/irq/proc.c, where it does perform a check.

Ah, I see. I hadn't noticed that you were testing the pointer before
dereferencing it. OK, seems fine to keep this check. I guess that
would make it this (untested):

if (desc->kstat_irqs) {
  counts_diff =3D *this_cpu_ptr(desc->kstat_irqs);
  if (i < __this_cpu_read(actual_nr_irqs))
    counts_diff -=3D counts[i];
} else {
  counts_diff =3D 0;
}