[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <707378c3-1ce1-12d7-e35d-8c8d4650340e@arm.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2021 18:02:15 +0100
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com,
Jamie Iles <jamie@...iainc.com>,
D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
lcherian@...vell.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 02/24] x86/resctrl: Split struct rdt_domain
Hi Babu,
On 15/06/2021 18:51, Babu Moger wrote:
> On 6/14/21 3:09 PM, James Morse wrote:
>> resctrl is the defacto Linux ABI for SoC resource partitioning features.
>>
>> To support it on another architecture, it needs to be abstracted from
>> the features provided by Intel RDT and AMD PQoS, and moved to /fs/.
>> struct rdt_resource contains a mix of architecture private details
>> and properties of the filesystem interface user-space users.
>>
>> Continue by splitting struct rdt_domain, into an architecture private
>> 'hw' struct, which contains the common resctrl structure that would be
>> used by any architecture. The hardware values in ctrl_val and mbps_val
>> need to be accessed via helpers to allow another architecture to convert
>> these into a different format if necessary. After this split, filesystem
>> code paths touching a 'hw' struct indicates where an abstraction
>> is needed.
>>
>> Splitting this structure only moves types around, and should not lead
>> to any change in behaviour.
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> index 43c8cf6b2b12..235cf621c878 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>> @@ -299,44 +299,25 @@ struct mbm_state {
>> -struct rdt_domain {
>> - struct list_head list;
>> - int id;
>> - struct cpumask cpu_mask;
>> - unsigned long *rmid_busy_llc;
>> - struct mbm_state *mbm_total;
>> - struct mbm_state *mbm_local;
>> - struct delayed_work mbm_over;
>> - struct delayed_work cqm_limbo;
>> - int mbm_work_cpu;
>> - int cqm_work_cpu;
>> +struct rdt_hw_domain {
>> + struct rdt_domain resctrl;
> Naming is bit confusing here. There is another field with the same
> name(patch1).
But a totally different type, you'd only access its members via the resource or domain, so
its always clear which it is. (and if you get them wrong, it won't build)
> +struct rdt_hw_resource {
> + struct rdt_resource resctrl;
>
> I think we should make this bit more clearer. May be or something similar.
>
> struct rdt_hw_domain {
> struct rdt_domain d_resctrl;
Sure, I guess it makes it clear when quoting something.
Thanks,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists