Hi Babu,
On 12/6/2023 9:17 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
> On 12/5/23 17:21, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 11/30/2023 4:57 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
...
>> Comparing with supported bits would be an additional check, but what does
>> that imply? Would it be possible for hardware to have a bit set that is
>> not supported? Would that mean it is actually supported or a hardware bug?
>
> No. Hardware supports all the bits reported here. Like i said before
> wanted to remove the hard-coded value.
The size of the field in the register is different information from what
the value of that field may be.
>
>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> static void mondata_config_read(struct rdt_domain *d, struct mon_config_info *mon_info)
>>> @@ -1621,7 +1621,7 @@ static int mbm_config_write_domain(struct rdt_resource *r,
>>> int ret = 0;
>>>
>>> /* mon_config cannot be more than the supported set of events */
>>> - if (val > MAX_EVT_CONFIG_BITS) {
>>> + if (val > resctrl_max_evt_bitmask) {
>>> rdt_last_cmd_puts("Invalid event configuration\n");
>>> return -EINVAL;
>>> }
>>
>> This does not look right. resctrl_max_evt_bitmask contains the supported
>> types. A user may set a value that is less than resctrl_max_evt_bitmask but
>> yet have an unsupported bit set, no?
>
> I think I have to make this clear in the patch. There is no difference in
> the definition. Hardware supports all the events reported by the cpuid.
I'll try to elaborate using an example. Let's say AMD decides to make
hardware with hypothetical support mask of:
resctrl_max_evt_bitmask = 0x4F (no support for Slow Mem).
What if user attempts to set config that enables monitoring of Slow Mem:
val = 0x30
In the above example, val is not larger than resctrl_max_evt_bitmask
but it is an invalid config, no?
Reinette
