Hi Reinette,
On 5/9/2024 10:18 PM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
Hi Babu,
On 5/9/2024 3:34 PM, Moger, Babu wrote:
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;
}:
This looks like a good start. It certainly supports ABMC. I do not yet
have a clear understanding about how this will support MPAM and soft-RMID/ABMC
since the current implementation has an implicit scope of one counter per event per
monitor group. It thus seem reasonable to have a new generic name of "cntrs".
How about renaming it to "assignable_counters"?
--
- Babu Moger
