linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 04/23] x86/resctrl: Merge mon_capable and mon

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: <ab2864e4-d2cd-c0a6-b745-65a7919bac63@arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 22 Oct 2021 19:30:14 +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, bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com,
        tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 04/23] x86/resctrl: Merge mon_capable and mon_enabled

Hi Babu,

On 20/10/2021 00:18, Babu Moger wrote:
> On 10/1/21 11:02 AM, James Morse wrote:
>> mon_enabled and mon_capable are always set as a pair by
>> rdt_get_mon_l3_config().
>>
>> There is no point having two values.
>>
>> Merge them together.

>> diff --git a/include/linux/resctrl.h b/include/linux/resctrl.h
>> index 386ab3a41500..8180c539800d 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/resctrl.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/resctrl.h
>> @@ -130,7 +130,6 @@ struct resctrl_schema;
>>  /**
>>   * struct rdt_resource - attributes of a resctrl resource
>>   * @rid:		The index of the resource
>> - * @mon_enabled:	Is monitoring enabled for this feature
>>   * @alloc_capable:	Is allocation available on this machine
>>   * @mon_capable:	Is monitor feature available on this machine
>>   * @num_rmid:		Number of RMIDs available
>> @@ -149,7 +148,6 @@ struct resctrl_schema;
>>   */
>>  struct rdt_resource {
>>  	int			rid;
>> -	bool			mon_enabled;
>>  	bool			alloc_capable;
>>  	bool			mon_capable;
> 
> Also we should probably rename alloc_capable and mon_capable to
> alloc_supported and mon_supported respectively. We dont have an option to
> enable and disable these feature. If it is supported, it is always supported.

Does 'capable' imply the feature was enabled? I agree 'supported' is clearer now that the
schema/resource enable step has been folded away.

I'll put this on the TODO list...


Thanks,

James