linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v10 4/8] x86/resctrl: Split the rdt_domain and rdt_hw

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Wed, 8 Nov 2023 11:43:43 -0800
From:   Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
To:     Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
CC:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
        Peter Newman <peternewman@...gle.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>, <x86@...nel.org>,
        Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com>,
        James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
        Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
        Babu Moger <babu.moger@....com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
        <patches@...ts.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 4/8] x86/resctrl: Split the rdt_domain and
 rdt_hw_domain structures

Hi Tony,

On 11/8/2023 11:19 AM, Tony Luck wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2023 at 04:32:56PM -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> Hi Tony,
>>
>> On 10/31/2023 2:17 PM, Tony Luck wrote:
>>> The same rdt_domain structure is used for both control and monitor
>>> functions. But this results in wasted memory as some of the fields are
>>> only used by control functions, while most are only used for monitor
>>> functions.
>>>
>>> Split into separate rdt_ctrl_domain and rdt_mon_domain structures with
>>> just the fields required for control and monitoring respectively.
>>>
>>> Similar split of the rdt_hw_domain structure into rdt_hw_ctrl_domain
>>> and rdt_hw_mon_domain.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Tony Luck <tony.luck@...el.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since v9
>>> Comment against patch 4, but now fixed in patch #2. cpu_mask
>>> is included in common header.

This is the expected change I referred to. Specifically:
	"cpu_mask is included in common header"

> What am I missing? (Apart from a silly cut & paste error in the comments
> that I just noticed and will fix now).


	struct rdt_ctrl_domain {
		struct rdt_domain_hdr		hdr;
		struct cpumask			cpu_mask;
		...
	}

Considering the description of the changes to expect in this version I
did not expect to see a cpu_mask member in struct rdt_ctrl_domain since
it has now been moved to struct rdt_domain_hdr. What am I missing?

Reinette