[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8fa84731-1ae6-e40f-3594-3241b1ee8bb4@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2025 14:55:17 +0800
From: Zeng Heng <zengheng4@...wei.com>
To: Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>
CC: <james.morse@....com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>, <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
<xiexiuqi@...wei.com>, "Wangshaobo (bobo)" <bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH mpam mpam/snapshot/v6.12-rc1 v3 2/5] arm_mpam: Read
monitor value with new closid/rmid pair
On 2024/12/13 0:18, Dave Martin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 07, 2024 at 05:21:33PM +0800, Zeng Heng wrote:
>> The MPAM driver statically assigns all reqPARTIDs to respective intPARTIDs.
>> For the new rmid allocation strategy, it will check if there is an
>> available rmid of any reqPARTID which belongs to the input closid, not just
>> the rmids belonging to the closid.
>>
>> For a mixture of MSCs system, for MSCs that do not support narrow-partid,
>> we use the PARTIDs exceeding the number of closids as reqPARTIDs for
>> expanding the monitoring groups.
>>
>> In order to keep the existing resctrl API interface, the rmid contains both
>> req_idx and PMG information instead of PMG only under the MPAM driver. The
>> req_idx represents the req_idx-th sub-monitoring group under the control
>> group. The new rmid would be like:
>>
>> rmid = (req_idx << shift | pmg).
>>
>> The mapping relationships between each group's closid/rmid and the
>> respective MSCs' intPARTID/reqPARTID/PARTID are illustrated:
>>
>> n - Indicates the total number of intPARTIDs
>> m - Indicates the number of reqPARTIDs per intPARTID
>>
>> P - Partition group (control group)
>> M - Monitoring group
>>
>> Group closid rmid.req_idx (req)PARTID MSCs with narrow-partid MSCs without narrow-partid
>> P1 0 - 0 intPARTID_1 PARTID_1
>> M1_1 0 0 0 ├── reqPARTID_1_1 ├── PARTID_1_1
>> M1_2 0 1 0+n ├── reqPARTID_1_2 ├── PARTID_1_2
>> M1_3 0 2 0+n*2 ├── reqPARTID_1_3 ├── PARTID_1_3
>> ... ├── ... ├── ...
>> M1_m 0 (m-1) 0+n*(m-1) └── reqPARTID_1_m └── PARTID_1_m
>>
>> P2 1 - 1 intPARTID_2 PARTID_2
>> M2_1 1 0 1 ├── reqPARTID_2_1 ├── PARTID_2_1
>> M2_2 1 1 1+n ├── reqPARTID_2_2 ├── PARTID_2_2
>> M2_3 1 2 1+n*2 ├── reqPARTID_2_3 ├── PARTID_2_3
>> ... ├── ... ├── ...
>> M2_m 1 (m-1) 1+n*(m-1) └── reqPARTID_2_m └── PARTID_2_m
>>
>> Pn (n-1) - (n-1) intPARTID_n PARTID_n
>> Mn_1 (n-1) 0 (n-1) ├── reqPARTID_n_1 ├── PARTID_n_1
>> Mn_2 (n-1) 1 (n-1)+n ├── reqPARTID_n_2 ├── PARTID_n_2
>> Mn_3 (n-1) 2 (n-1)+n*2 ├── reqPARTID_n_3 ├── PARTID_n_3
>> ... ├── ... ├── ...
>> Mn_m (n-1) (m-1) (n-1)+n*(m-1) = n*m-1 └── reqPARTID_n_m └── PARTID_n_m
>>
>> Based on the example provided, the conversion relationship between
>> closid/rmid and (req)PARTID/PMG is:
>>
>> (req)PARTID = (rmid.req_idx * n) + closid,
>> PMG = rmid.pmg.
>
> It seemed more natural to me for the PARTIDs assigned to a particular
> CLOSID to be consecutively numbered (see [1]), though it works either
> way.
>
> Otherwise, the approach makes sense.
>
After attempting to change the mapping method in practice, I found that
there are some following advantages of the current method which keeps
intPARTIDs are mapped to the first n IDs:
1. Because closid is exactly equal to intPARTID, and the conversion
relationship between closid and intPARTID remains unchanged under the
current method (still only call the resctrl_get_config_index() for
conversion), maintaining the original semantics during the MPAM
configuration updating;
2. Since there is no need to create a new transformation (like
closid2intpartid()) between closid and intPARTID, this can reduce the
work of function adaptations, such as in resctrl_arch_update_one(),
resctrl_arch_get_config(), and so on, which doesn't need any extra
adaptions and keeps things as simple as possible.
Looking forward to your comments.
Greeting for new year,
Zeng Heng
Powered by blists - more mailing lists