linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] x86/resctrl: Add arch_needs_linear to explain AMD/Intel MBA difference

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ff095b21-023c-a3c6-2f6c-89c0e3d02eb3@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 11:03:14 -0700
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     James Morse <james.morse@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] x86/resctrl: Add arch_needs_linear to explain
 AMD/Intel MBA difference

Hi James,

On 5/18/2020 6:19 AM, James Morse wrote:
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> index dd51e23e346b..0b288b6fefd9 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> @@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ struct rdt_cache {
>   * struct rdt_membw - Memory bandwidth allocation related data
>   * @min_bw:		Minimum memory bandwidth percentage user can request
>   * @bw_gran:		Granularity at which the memory bandwidth is allocated
> + * @arch_needs_linear:	True if we can't configure non-linear resources
>   * @delay_linear:	True if memory B/W delay is in linear scale
>   * @mba_sc:		True if MBA software controller(mba_sc) is enabled
>   * @mb_map:		Mapping of memory B/W percentage to memory B/W delay
> @@ -378,6 +379,7 @@ struct rdt_membw {
>  	u32		min_bw;
>  	u32		bw_gran;
>  	u32		delay_linear;
> +	bool		arch_needs_linear;
>  	bool		mba_sc;
>  	u32		*mb_map;
>  };
> 

Sorry, I just noticed this while rebasing our respective changes to this
area ... could the comments be in the same order as the fields in the
struct?

Reinette