Re: [PATCH v10 10/10] x86/resctrl: Display RMID of resource group

[Peter Newman]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 7:59 PM Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 9/22/23 07:36, Peter Newman wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 16, 2023 at 12:42 AM Babu Moger <babu.moger@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> In x86, hardware uses RMID to identify a monitoring group. When a user
> >> creates a monitor group these details are not visible. These details
> >> can help resctrl debugging.
> >>
> >> Add RMID(mon_hw_id) to the monitor groups display in resctrl interface.
> >> Users can see these details when resctrl is mounted with "-o debug" option.
> >
> > When I reviewed this, I went through the whole series second-guessing
> > the wording above and wondering whether "monitoring groups" applied to
> > CTRL_MON groups.
> >
> > I was able to confirm that mon_hw_id did appear and had a believable
> > value in CTRL_MON groups which had allocated monitors. (and I added
> > some comma-separated PID lists to the tasks node)
> >
> > for the series:
> > Tested-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Please use "Tested-by" instead of "Tested-By" (the "By" is wrong).

Tested-by: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>

> >
> >> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> >> index a07fa4329b65..b4910892b0a6 100644
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/internal.h
> >> @@ -296,6 +296,11 @@ struct rdtgroup {
> >>    *     --> RFTYPE_BASE (Files common for both MON and CTRL groups)
> >>    *         Files: cpus, cpus_list, tasks
> >>    *
> >> + *             --> RFTYPE_MON (Files only for MON group)
> >
> > If monitoring is supported, all groups are MON groups. I think the
> > "only" above caused me to second guess whether this takes into account
> > CTRL_MON groups getting the RFTYPE_MON flag set dynamically.
> >
> > However, I think the documentation above is still technically accurate.
> >
> > for the series:
> > Reviewed-By: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Please use "Reviewed-by" instead of "Reviewed-By" (the "By" is wrong).

Reviewed-by: Peter Newman <peternewman@xxxxxxxxxx>