Re: [PATCH v7 08/24] x86/resctrl: Track the number of dirty RMID a CLOSID has

From: James Morse
Date: Wed Dec 13 2023 - 13:05:07 EST


Hi Babu,

On 09/11/2023 20:38, Moger, Babu wrote:
> On 10/25/23 13:03, James Morse wrote:
>> MPAM's PMG bits extend its PARTID space, meaning the same PMG value can be
>> used for different control groups.
>>
>> This means once a CLOSID is allocated, all its monitoring ids may still be
>> dirty, and held in limbo.
>>
>> Keep track of the number of RMID held in limbo each CLOSID has. This will
>> allow a future helper to find the 'cleanest' CLOSID when allocating.
>>
>> The array is only needed when CONFIG_RESCTRL_RMID_DEPENDS_ON_CLOSID is
>> defined. This will never be the case on x86.

>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>> index 3c9343dffdf7..9a07707d3eb4 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/resctrl/monitor.c
>> @@ -794,13 +815,30 @@ void mbm_setup_overflow_handler(struct rdt_domain *dom, unsigned long delay_ms)
>> static int dom_data_init(struct rdt_resource *r)
>> {
>> u32 idx_limit = resctrl_arch_system_num_rmid_idx();
>> + u32 num_closid = resctrl_arch_get_num_closid(r);
>> struct rmid_entry *entry = NULL;
>> + int err = 0, i;
>> u32 idx;
>> - int i;
>> +
>> + mutex_lock(&rdtgroup_mutex);
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESCTRL_RMID_DEPENDS_ON_CLOSID)) {
>> + u32 *tmp;
>> +
>> + tmp = kcalloc(num_closid, sizeof(*tmp), GFP_KERNEL);
>> + if (!tmp) {
>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out_unlock;
>> + }
>> +
>> + closid_num_dirty_rmid = tmp;
>> + }
>
> Any reason tmp variable required here?

Line length barking from checkpatch, the resulting newlines and indentation were hard
to read, I figured this was more readable.


>> rmid_ptrs = kcalloc(idx_limit, sizeof(struct rmid_entry), GFP_KERNEL);
>> - if (!rmid_ptrs)
>> - return -ENOMEM;
>> + if (!rmid_ptrs) {
>> + kfree(closid_num_dirty_rmid);
>
> Should there be check here while feeing?
>
> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_RESCTRL_RMID_DEPENDS_ON_CLOSID))

Not for the sake of kfree(), which is quite happy with NULL.

But it looks like it is needed for the compiler to realise that closid_num_dirty_rmid
isn't used at all, and can be optimised out - which was my intention.

Thanks, I'll add that.


>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>> + goto out_unlock;
>> + }
>>
>> for (i = 0; i < idx_limit; i++) {
>> entry = &rmid_ptrs[i];


Thanks,

James