Hi Reinette,
On 5/7/24 15:27, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
>
> On 5/6/2024 12:09 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>> On 5/3/24 18:26, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> On 3/28/2024 6:06 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>
> ...
>
>>>> + * @mbm_assign_cntrs: Maximum number of assignable counters
>>>> */
>>>> struct rdt_resource {
>>>> int rid;
>>>> @@ -188,6 +198,8 @@ struct rdt_resource {
>>>> struct list_head evt_list;
>>>> unsigned long fflags;
>>>> bool cdp_capable;
>>>> + bool mbm_assign_capable;
>>>> + u32 mbm_assign_cntrs;
>>>> };
>>>
>>> Please check tabs vs spaces (in this whole series please).
>>
>> Sure. Will do.
>>
>>>
>>> I'm thinking that a new "MBM specific" struct within
>>> struct rdt_resource will be helpful to clearly separate the MBM related
>>> data. This will be similar to struct resctrl_cache for
>>> cache allocation and struct resctrl_membw for memory bandwidth
>>> allocation.
>>
>> Did you mean to move all the fields for monitoring to move to new struct?
>>
>> Struct resctrl_mbm {
>> int num_rmid;
>> bool mbm_assign_capable;
>> u32 mbm_assign_cntrs;
>> }:
>>
>
> Indeed, so not actually MBM specific but monitoring specific as you state (with
> appropriate naming?). This is purely to help organize data within struct rdt_resource
> and (similar to struct resctrl_cache and struct resctrl_membw) not a new
> structure expected to be passed around. I think evt_list can also be a member.
How about this?
Lets keep assign_capable in main structure(like we have mon_capable) and
move rest of them into new structure.
Struct resctrl_mon {
int num_rmid;
struct list_head evt_list;
u32 num_assign_cntrs;
}:
--
Thanks
Babu Moger
