Hi Dave, On 5/2/24 12:52, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 5/2/2024 9:21 AM, Dave Martin wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 08:06:50PM -0500, Babu Moger wrote: >>> diff --git a/Documentation/arch/x86/resctrl.rst b/Documentation/arch/x86/resctrl.rst >>> index 2d96565501ab..64ec70637c66 100644 >>> --- a/Documentation/arch/x86/resctrl.rst >>> +++ b/Documentation/arch/x86/resctrl.rst >>> @@ -328,6 +328,77 @@ with the following files: >>> None of events are assigned on this mon group. This is a child >>> monitor group of the non default control mon group. >>> >>> + Assignment state can be updated by writing to this interface. >>> + >>> + NOTE: Assignment on one domain applied on all the domains. User can >>> + pass one valid domain and assignment will be updated on all the >>> + available domains. >>> + >>> + Format is similar to the list format with addition of op-code for the >>> + assignment operation. >>> + >>> + * Default CTRL_MON group: >>> + "//<domain_id><op-code><assignment_flags>" >>> + >>> + * Non-default CTRL_MON group: >>> + "<CTRL_MON group>//<domain_id><op-code><assignment_flags>" >>> + >>> + * Child MON group of default CTRL_MON group: >>> + "/<MON group>/<domain_id><op-code><assignment_flags>" >>> + >>> + * Child MON group of non-default CTRL_MON group: >>> + "<CTRL_MON group>/<MON group>/<domain_id><op-code><assignment_flags>" >> >> The final bullet seems to cover everything, if we allow <CTRL_MON group> >> and <MON group> to be independently empty strings to indicate the >> default control and/or monitoring group respectively. >> >> Would that be simpler than treating this as four separate cases? That is correct. I will add a generic format before this description and then add these 4 cases. That way it will be more clear. >> >> Also, will this go wrong if someone creates a resctrl group with '\n' >> (i.e., a newline character) in the name? > > There is a check for this in rdtgroup_mkdir(). > >> >>> + >>> + Op-code can be one of the following: >>> + :: >>> + >>> + = Update the assignment to match the flags >>> + + Assign a new state >>> + - Unassign a new state >>> + _ Unassign all the states >> >> I can't remember whether I already asked this, but is "_" really >> needed here? > > Asked twice: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZiaRXrmDDjc194JI@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZiervIprcwoApAqw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Answered: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/4cd220cc-2e8e-4193-b01a-d3cd798c7118@xxxxxxx/ > > You seemed ok with answer then: > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/ZiffF93HM8bE3qo7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > >> >> Wouldn't it be the case that >> >> //*_ >> >> would mean just the same thing as >> >> //*=_ >> >> ...? (assuming the "*" = "all domains" convention already discussed) >> >> Maybe I'm missing something here. > > I believe have an explicit operator ("+", "=", or "-") simplifies > parsing while providing an interface consistent with what users are already > used to. > > Reinette -- Thanks Babu Moger
