[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <32bc0e4a-d0bb-4aaa-8706-95a6edd470a9@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 18:45:07 +0100
From: James Morse <james.morse@....com>
To: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@....com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org
Cc: D Scott Phillips OS <scott@...amperecomputing.com>,
carl@...amperecomputing.com, lcherian@...vell.com,
bobo.shaobowang@...wei.com, tan.shaopeng@...itsu.com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@...cinc.com>,
Xin Hao <xhao@...ux.alibaba.com>, peternewman@...gle.com,
dfustini@...libre.com, amitsinght@...vell.com,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Dave Martin <dave.martin@....com>,
Koba Ko <kobak@...dia.com>, Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@...dia.com>,
fenghuay@...dia.com, baisheng.gao@...soc.com,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>, Rob Herring
<robh@...nel.org>, Rohit Mathew <rohit.mathew@....com>,
Rafael Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org>, Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>, Hanjun Guo
<guohanjun@...wei.com>, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 13/29] arm_mpam: Probe the hardware features resctrl
supports
Hi Ben,
On 11/09/2025 16:37, Ben Horgan wrote:
> On 9/10/25 21:42, James Morse wrote:
>> Expand the probing support with the control and monitor types
>> we can use with resctrl.
>> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h
>> index 4cc44d4e21c4..5ae5d4eee8ec 100644
>> --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h
>> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h
>> @@ -112,6 +112,55 @@ static inline void mpam_mon_sel_lock_init(struct mpam_msc *msc)
>> raw_spin_lock_init(&msc->_mon_sel_lock);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * When we compact the supported features, we don't care what they are.
>> + * Storing them as a bitmap makes life easy.
>> + */
>> +typedef u16 mpam_features_t;
>> +
>> +/* Bits for mpam_features_t */
>> +enum mpam_device_features {
>> + mpam_feat_ccap_part = 0,
>> + mpam_feat_cpor_part,
>> + mpam_feat_mbw_part,
>> + mpam_feat_mbw_min,
>> + mpam_feat_mbw_max,
>> + mpam_feat_mbw_prop,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_csu,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_csu_capture,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_csu_hw_nrdy,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_mbwu,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_mbwu_capture,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_mbwu_rwbw,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_mbwu_hw_nrdy,
>> + mpam_feat_msmon_capt,
>> + MPAM_FEATURE_LAST,
>> +};
> I added a garbled comment about this for v1. What I was trying to say is
> that I don't think this quite matches what resctrl supports. For
> instance, I don't think mpam_feat_ccap_part matches a resctrl feature.
Ah - right. I thought you meant something was removed later.
Looks like I thought something could be emulated with CCAP, but that turns out not to be
true because it doesn't have an implicit isolation property, which the
resctrl:bitmap-from-userspace requires.
(I think rwbw was a later addition to the architecture and I added it to the wrong patch).
I'll move that, _prop and _rwbw to the later patch. The split is fairly arbitrary - it was
just somewhere to split an otherwise large patch, and does help determine if a bug is
going to be visible to user-space or not.
_capt can go completely. Last I heard no-one was interested in firmware descriptions of
how the capture hardware can be triggered. I suspect no-one has done anything with it.
Thanks,
James
Powered by blists - more mailing lists