linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v14 02/32] x86,fs/resctrl: Consolidate monitor event descriptions

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: <09c1aa33-08f7-456e-9c15-323a29877302@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2025 10:57:06 -0500
From: "Moger, Babu" <babu.moger@....com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>, corbet@....net,
 tony.luck@...el.com, Dave.Martin@....com, james.morse@....com,
 tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, bp@...en8.de,
 dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Cc: x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
 rostedt@...dmis.org, paulmck@...nel.org, thuth@...hat.com, ardb@...nel.org,
 gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, seanjc@...gle.com, thomas.lendacky@....com,
 pawan.kumar.gupta@...ux.intel.com, manali.shukla@....com,
 perry.yuan@....com, kai.huang@...el.com, peterz@...radead.org,
 xiaoyao.li@...el.com, kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, mario.limonciello@....com,
 xin3.li@...el.com, gautham.shenoy@....com, xin@...or.com,
 chang.seok.bae@...el.com, fenghuay@...dia.com, peternewman@...gle.com,
 maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com, eranian@...gle.com,
 linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v14 02/32] x86,fs/resctrl: Consolidate monitor event
 descriptions

Hi Reinette,

On 6/24/25 16:28, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu/Tony,
> 
> On 6/13/25 2:04 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>> diff --git a/fs/resctrl/internal.h b/fs/resctrl/internal.h
>> index 0a1eedba2b03..20e2c45cea64 100644
>> --- a/fs/resctrl/internal.h
>> +++ b/fs/resctrl/internal.h
>> @@ -52,19 +52,26 @@ static inline struct rdt_fs_context *rdt_fc2context(struct fs_context *fc)
>>  }
>>  
>>  /**
>> - * struct mon_evt - Entry in the event list of a resource
>> + * struct mon_evt - Description of a monitor event
> 
> nit: I still think "Properties" is more appropriate.

I will let Tony take care of this.
Also, there is another comment
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/b761e6ec-a874-4d06-8437-a3a717a91abb@intel.com/

I can pick up from your "aegl" tree. Let me know otherwise.
I am not in a hurry. I will plan to post the series next week.

> 
>>   * @evtid:		event id
>> + * @rid:		index of the resource for this event
>>   * @name:		name of the event
>>   * @configurable:	true if the event is configurable
>> - * @list:		entry in &rdt_resource->evt_list
>> + * @enabled:		true if the event is enabled
>>   */
>>  struct mon_evt {
>>  	enum resctrl_event_id	evtid;
>> +	enum resctrl_res_level	rid;
>>  	char			*name;
>>  	bool			configurable;
>> -	struct list_head	list;
>> +	bool			enabled;
>>  };
>>  
>> +extern struct mon_evt mon_event_all[QOS_NUM_EVENTS];
>> +
>> +#define for_each_mon_event(mevt) for (mevt = &mon_event_all[QOS_FIRST_EVENT];	\
>> +				      mevt < &mon_event_all[QOS_NUM_EVENTS]; mevt++)
>> +
> 
>>>From what I can tell this series does not build on some core changes
> made by this patch:
> - note that resource ID is added to struct mon_evt and the events
>   are *removed* from the evt_list associated with the resource. I'll try to point
>   out where I see it but this series still behaves as though it is traversing
>   evt_list associated with the resource. Take for example
>   patch #24 "fs/resctrl: Add event configuration directory under info/L3_MON/":
>   resctrl_mkdir_counter_configs() traverses mon_event_all[] that, after this
>   patch, contains all events for *all* resources, yet resctrl_mkdir_counter_configs(),
>   even though it has a struct rdt_resource as parameter, assumes that all events are
>   associated its resource but there is no checking to enforce this. 
> - note the new for_each_mon_event() above. This should be used throughout
>   instead of open-coding the loop because the array starts at index 0 but
>   the first valid entry is at index 1. The above macro makes this easier to
>   get right.

Yes. Make sense. Will take of this in patch #24, #28 and #29.--
Thanks
Babu Moger