Hi Reinette,
On 5/7/24 15:32, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
>
> On 5/7/2024 12:12 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 18:30, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 6:06 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> /* MSR_IA32_VMX_MISC bits */
>>>> #define MSR_IA32_VMX_MISC_INTEL_PT (1ULL << 14)
>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>>>> index 722388621403..8238ee437369 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
>>>> @@ -96,6 +96,9 @@ cpumask_any_housekeeping(const struct cpumask *mask, int exclude_cpu)
>>>> return cpu;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/* ABMC ENABLE */
>>>
>>> Can this comment be made more useful?
>>
>> How about?
>> /* Setting bit 0 in L3_QOS_EXT_CFG enables ABMC features */
>
> Regarding "ABMC features" - are there several features connected to
> "ABMC"?
>
No. It should have been "ABMC feature". Will correct it.
>>
>> Or I can remove it totally.
>>
>>>
>
> ...
>
>>>> +int resctrl_arch_set_abmc_enabled(enum resctrl_res_level l, bool enable)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct rdt_hw_resource *hw_res = &rdt_resources_all[l];
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!hw_res->r_resctrl.mbm_assign_capable)
>>>> + return -EINVAL;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (enable)
>>>> + return resctrl_abmc_enable(l);
>>>> +
>>>> + resctrl_abmc_disable(l);
>>>> +
>>>> + return 0;
>>>> +}
>>>
>>> Why is resctrl_arch_set_abmc_enabled() necessary? It seem to add an unnecessary
>>> layer of abstraction.
>>>
>>
>> I feel it is better to keep it that way. It is consistent with definition
>> of resctrl_arch_set_cdp_enabled. It handles both enable and disable.
>> Otherwise we have add those checks from the caller.
>
> Caller needs to know anyway whether to provide "true" or "false" to this function ...
> caller may as well just call the appropriate _enable()/_disable() variant, no?
Yes. We can call resctrl_abmc_enable() and resctrl_abmc_disable() directly.
Thanks
Babu Moger
