Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Enable/disable MBA software controller

On Sun, 13 May 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > > +/* > > + * Enable or disable the MBA software controller > > + * which helps user specify bandwidth in MBps. > > + * MBA software controller is supported only if > > + * MBM is supported and MBA is in

Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Enable/disable MBA software controller

On Sun, 13 May 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > > +/* > > + * Enable or disable the MBA software controller > > + * which helps user specify bandwidth in MBps. > > + * MBA software controller is supported only if > > + * MBM is supported and MBA is in

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] Memory bandwidth allocation software controller(mba_sc)

Hello Thomas, I have sent a new version trying to address your feedback. Made this more cleaner also. Would be great if you could let me know any feedback. Regards, Vikas On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > Sending the second version of MBA software controller which addresses > the

Re: [PATCH V2 0/6] Memory bandwidth allocation software controller(mba_sc)

Hello Thomas, I have sent a new version trying to address your feedback. Made this more cleaner also. Would be great if you could let me know any feedback. Regards, Vikas On Fri, 20 Apr 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > Sending the second version of MBA software controller which addresses > the

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add documentation for MBA software controller

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Shivappa Vikas wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > > > The L2 external bandwidth is higher than the L3 external bandwidth. > > &

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add documentation for MBA software controller

On Wed, 4 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Shivappa Vikas wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > > On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: > > > The L2 external bandwidth is higher than the L3 external bandwidth. > > &

Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add initialization support

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +void setup_ctrlval(struct rdt_resource *r, u32 *dc, u32 *dm) +{ + int i; + + /* +* Initialize the Control MSRs to having no control. +* For Cache Allocation: Set all bits in cbm

Re: [PATCH 3/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add initialization support

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +void setup_ctrlval(struct rdt_resource *r, u32 *dc, u32 *dm) +{ + int i; + + /* +* Initialize the Control MSRs to having no control. +* For Cache Allocation: Set all bits in cbm

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add documentation for MBA software controller

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: You said above: This may lead to confusion in scenarios below: Reading the blurb after that creates even more confusion than being helpful. First of all this

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add documentation for MBA software controller

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: You said above: This may lead to confusion in scenarios below: Reading the blurb after that creates even more confusion than being helpful. First of all this

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add documentation for MBA software controller

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +Memory bandwidth(b/w) in MegaBytes +-- + +Memory bandwidth is a core specific mechanism which means that when the +Memory b/w percentage is specified in the schemata per

Re: [PATCH 1/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add documentation for MBA software controller

On Tue, 3 Apr 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +Memory bandwidth(b/w) in MegaBytes +-- + +Memory bandwidth is a core specific mechanism which means that when the +Memory b/w percentage is specified in the schemata per

Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add support to enable/disable via mount option

Hello Thomas, On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Subject: x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add support to enable/disable via mount option Huch? From Documentation: The ``summary phrase`` in the email's Subject should concisely describe the

Re: [PATCH 2/6] x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add support to enable/disable via mount option

Hello Thomas, On Fri, 30 Mar 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 29 Mar 2018, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Subject: x86/intel_rdt/mba_sc: Add support to enable/disable via mount option Huch? From Documentation: The ``summary phrase`` in the email's Subject should concisely describe the

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Improve limbo list processing

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -426,6 +426,9 @@ static int domain_setup_mon_state(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d) GFP_KERNEL

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Improve limbo list processing

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -426,6 +426,9 @@ static int domain_setup_mon_state(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d) GFP_KERNEL

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Improve limbo list processing

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -426,6 +426,9 @@ static int domain_setup_mon_state(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d) GFP_KERNEL); if (!d->rmid_busy_llc)

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Improve limbo list processing

On Mon, 14 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 9 Aug 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -426,6 +426,9 @@ static int domain_setup_mon_state(struct rdt_resource *r, struct rdt_domain *d) GFP_KERNEL); if (!d->rmid_busy_llc)

Re: [PATCH 09/28] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add RMID(Resource monitoring ID) management

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Hardware uses RMID(Resource monitoring ID) to keep track of each of the RDT events associated with tasks. The number of RMIDs is dependent on the SKU and is enumerated via CPUID. We add support to manage

Re: [PATCH 09/28] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add RMID(Resource monitoring ID) management

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Hardware uses RMID(Resource monitoring ID) to keep track of each of the RDT events associated with tasks. The number of RMIDs is dependent on the SKU and is enumerated via CPUID. We add support to manage

Re: [PATCH 00/28 V2] Cqm3 patch series(along with MBM support)

Hello Thomas, On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Sending the V2 series to address all the feedback that was received in V1. Apart from that this series adds a patch from Reinette to fix a global declaration in existing RDT and also fixes

Re: [PATCH 00/28 V2] Cqm3 patch series(along with MBM support)

Hello Thomas, On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Sending the V2 series to address all the feedback that was received in V1. Apart from that this series adds a patch from Reinette to fix a global declaration in existing RDT and also fixes

Re: [PATCH 16/28] x86/intel_rdt: Prepare to add RDT monitor cpus file support

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: /* * The cached intel_pqr_state is strictly per CPU and can never be * updated from a remote CPU. Functions which modify the state @@ -49,6 +47,8 @@ */ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct intel_pqr_state,

Re: [PATCH 16/28] x86/intel_rdt: Prepare to add RDT monitor cpus file support

On Tue, 1 Aug 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Tue, 25 Jul 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: /* * The cached intel_pqr_state is strictly per CPU and can never be * updated from a remote CPU. Functions which modify the state @@ -49,6 +47,8 @@ */ DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct intel_pqr_state,

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: { + struct rdtgroup *pr = rdtgrp->parent, *cr; *pr and *cr really suck. We used r before rdtgroup. pr would be parent rdtgrp. Wanted to keep them short as there are more in this function. prgrp can be used if thats not ok?

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: { + struct rdtgroup *pr = rdtgrp->parent, *cr; *pr and *cr really suck. We used r before rdtgroup. pr would be parent rdtgrp. Wanted to keep them short as there are more in this function. prgrp can be used if thats not ok?

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: + /* Check whether cpus belong to parent ctrl group */ + cpumask_andnot(tmpmask, newmask, >cpu_mask); + if (cpumask_weight(tmpm

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: + /* Check whether cpus belong to parent ctrl group */ + cpumask_andnot(tmpmask, newmask, >cpu_mask); + if (cpumask_weight(tmpm

Re: [PATCH 08/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add RMID(Resource monitoring ID) management

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: Thinking a bit more about that limbo mechanics. In case that a RMID was never used on a particular package, the state check forces an IPI on all packages unconditionally. That's suboptimal at least. We

Re: [PATCH 08/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add RMID(Resource monitoring ID) management

On Mon, 3 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: Thinking a bit more about that limbo mechanics. In case that a RMID was never used on a particular package, the state check forces an IPI on all packages unconditionally. That's suboptimal at least. We

Re: [PATCH 14/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mon_data

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: +static bool __mon_event_count(u32 rmid, struct rmid_read *rr) +{ + u64 tval; + + tval = __rmid_read(rmid, rr->evtid); + if (t

Re: [PATCH 14/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mon_data

On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 6 Jul 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: +static bool __mon_event_count(u32 rmid, struct rmid_read *rr) +{ + u64 tval; + + tval = __rmid_read(rmid, rr->evtid); + if (t

Re: [PATCH 21/21] x86/intel_rdt/mbm: Handle counter overflow

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +static void mbm_update(struct rdt_domain *d, int rmid) +{ + struct rmid_read rr; + + rr.first = false; + rr.d = d; + + if (is_mbm_total_enabled()) { + rr.evtid =

Re: [PATCH 21/21] x86/intel_rdt/mbm: Handle counter overflow

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +static void mbm_update(struct rdt_domain *d, int rmid) +{ + struct rmid_read rr; + + rr.first = false; + rr.d = d; + + if (is_mbm_total_enabled()) { + rr.evtid =

Re: [PATCH 19/21] x86/intel_rdt/mbm: Basic counting of MBM events (total and local)

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: INIT_LIST_HEAD(>evt_list); if (rdt_mon_features & (1 << QOS_L3_OCCUP_EVENT_ID)) list_add_tail(_occupancy_event.list, >evt_list); + if (is_mbm_total_enabled()) + list_add_tail(_total_event.list,

Re: [PATCH 19/21] x86/intel_rdt/mbm: Basic counting of MBM events (total and local)

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: INIT_LIST_HEAD(>evt_list); if (rdt_mon_features & (1 << QOS_L3_OCCUP_EVENT_ID)) list_add_tail(_occupancy_event.list, >evt_list); + if (is_mbm_total_enabled()) + list_add_tail(_total_event.list,

Re: [PATCH 17/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add sched_in support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct intel_pqr_state, pqr_state); DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, cpu_closid); +DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, cpu_rmid); DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(rdt_alloc_enable_key);

Re: [PATCH 17/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add sched_in support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: DECLARE_PER_CPU(struct intel_pqr_state, pqr_state); DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, cpu_closid); +DECLARE_PER_CPU_READ_MOSTLY(int, cpu_rmid); DECLARE_STATIC_KEY_FALSE(rdt_alloc_enable_key);

Re: [PATCH 16/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mount,umount support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: list_for_each_entry_safe(rdtgrp, tmp, _all_groups, rdtgroup_list) { + /* Free any child rmids */ + llist = >crdtgrp_list; +

Re: [PATCH 16/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mount,umount support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: list_for_each_entry_safe(rdtgrp, tmp, _all_groups, rdtgroup_list) { + /* Free any child rmids */ + llist = >crdtgrp_list; +

Re: [PATCH 15/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add rmdir support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Resource groups (ctrl_mon and monitor groups) are represented by directories in resctrl fs. Add support to remove the directories. Again. Please split that patch into two parts; seperate ctrl stuff from

Re: [PATCH 15/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add rmdir support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Resource groups (ctrl_mon and monitor groups) are represented by directories in resctrl fs. Add support to remove the directories. Again. Please split that patch into two parts; seperate ctrl stuff from

Re: [PATCH 14/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mon_data

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Add a mon_data directory for the root rdtgroup and all other rdtgroups. The directory holds all of the monitored data for all domains and events of all resources being monitored. Again. This does two

Re: [PATCH 14/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mon_data

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Add a mon_data directory for the root rdtgroup and all other rdtgroups. The directory holds all of the monitored data for all domains and events of all resources being monitored. Again. This does two

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: -static ssize_t rdtgroup_cpus_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, - char *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t off) +static ssize_t cpus_mon_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, +

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: -static ssize_t rdtgroup_cpus_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, - char *buf, size_t nbytes, loff_t off) +static ssize_t cpus_mon_write(struct kernfs_open_file *of, +

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h index fdf3654..fec8ba9 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@

Re: [PATCH 13/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add cpus file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h index fdf3654..fec8ba9 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt.h @@ -37,6 +37,8 @@

Re: [PATCH 12/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add tasks file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -866,6 +866,7 @@ struct task_struct { #endif #ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_RDT int closid; + u32 rmid; Can you please make a preparatory

Re: [PATCH 12/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add tasks file support

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -866,6 +866,7 @@ struct task_struct { #endif #ifdef CONFIG_INTEL_RDT int closid; + u32 rmid; Can you please make a preparatory

Re: [PATCH 11/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mkdir support for RDT monitoring

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +/* + * Common code for ctrl_mon and monitor group mkdir. + * The caller needs to unlock the global mutex upon success. + */ +static int mkdir_rdt_common(struct kernfs_node *pkn, struct kernfs_node *prkn,

Re: [PATCH 11/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add mkdir support for RDT monitoring

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +/* + * Common code for ctrl_mon and monitor group mkdir. + * The caller needs to unlock the global mutex upon success. + */ +static int mkdir_rdt_common(struct kernfs_node *pkn, struct kernfs_node *prkn,

Re: [PATCH 09/21] x86/intel_rdt: Simplify info and base file lists

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct rdt_resource rdt_resources_all[] = { }, .parse_ctrlval = parse_cbm, .format_str = "%d=%0*x", +

Re: [PATCH 09/21] x86/intel_rdt: Simplify info and base file lists

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ struct rdt_resource rdt_resources_all[] = { }, .parse_ctrlval = parse_cbm, .format_str = "%d=%0*x", +

Re: [PATCH 07/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add RDT monitoring initialization

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +/* + * Global boolean for rdt_alloc which is true if any + * resource allocation is enabled. + */ +bool rdt_alloc_enabled; That should be rdt_alloc_capable. It's not enabled at probe time. Probing merily

Re: [PATCH 07/21] x86/intel_rdt/cqm: Add RDT monitoring initialization

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 26 Jun 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +/* + * Global boolean for rdt_alloc which is true if any + * resource allocation is enabled. + */ +bool rdt_alloc_enabled; That should be rdt_alloc_capable. It's not enabled at probe time. Probing merily

Re: [PATCH 0/1] x86/cqm: Cqm3 Design Documentation

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 17 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: Hello Thomas, Wanted to know if you had any feedback on the new interface for cqm design which is based on monitoring the resctrl groups. It tries to address all the requirements discussed in : https

Re: [PATCH 0/1] x86/cqm: Cqm3 Design Documentation

On Mon, 22 May 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 17 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: Hello Thomas, Wanted to know if you had any feedback on the new interface for cqm design which is based on monitoring the resctrl groups. It tries to address all the requirements discussed in : https

Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/cqm: Make sure the head event of cache_groups always has valid RMID

Besides there's another bug that we retry rotating without resetting nr_needed and start in __intel_cqm_rmid_rotate(). Those bugs combined together led to the following oops. WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_cqm.c:186 __put_rmid+0x28/0x80() ... [] __put_rmid+0x28/0x80 []

Re: [PATCH] perf/x86/intel/cqm: Make sure the head event of cache_groups always has valid RMID

Besides there's another bug that we retry rotating without resetting nr_needed and start in __intel_cqm_rmid_rotate(). Those bugs combined together led to the following oops. WARNING: at arch/x86/kernel/cpu/perf_event_intel_cqm.c:186 __put_rmid+0x28/0x80() ... [] __put_rmid+0x28/0x80 []

Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/intel_rdt: Trim whitespace while parsing schemata input

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: Will fix. I went overboard not wanting to add a line Finish reading the thread before you start :) Got it :) Had not seen the tip bot emails on my other email..

Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/intel_rdt: Trim whitespace while parsing schemata input

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: Will fix. I went overboard not wanting to add a line Finish reading the thread before you start :) Got it :) Had not seen the tip bot emails on my other email..

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/intel_rdt: Return error for incorrect resource names in schemata

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: } The resulting loop is just horrible to read. We can do better than that. Patch below. Thanks, tglx 8<- --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_schemata.c +++

Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/intel_rdt: Return error for incorrect resource names in schemata

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: } The resulting loop is just horrible to read. We can do better than that. Patch below. Thanks, tglx 8<- --- a/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_schemata.c +++

Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/intel_rdt: Trim whitespace while parsing schemata input

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Schemata is displayed in tabular format which introduces some whitespace to show data in a tabular format. If user wants to input the same data that is displayed, the parsing fails. Trim the leading and

Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86/intel_rdt: Trim whitespace while parsing schemata input

On Thu, 20 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 19 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Schemata is displayed in tabular format which introduces some whitespace to show data in a tabular format. If user wants to input the same data that is displayed, the parsing fails. Trim the leading and

Re: [PATCH 0/1] x86/cqm: Cqm3 Design Documentation

Hello Thomas, Wanted to know if you had any feedback on the new interface for cqm design which is based on monitoring the resctrl groups. It tries to address all the requirements discussed in : https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=148891934720489 -basically to monitor resctrl groups / per

Re: [PATCH 0/1] x86/cqm: Cqm3 Design Documentation

Hello Thomas, Wanted to know if you had any feedback on the new interface for cqm design which is based on monitoring the resctrl groups. It tries to address all the requirements discussed in : https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=148891934720489 -basically to monitor resctrl groups / per

Re: [PATCH 0/8 V4] x86/intel_rdt: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: Please do the following: 1) Verify that it still works as I have no hardware to test it. Once you confirmed, it's going to show up in -next. So please do that ASAP, i.e. yesterday. 2) Go through

Re: [PATCH 0/8 V4] x86/intel_rdt: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: Please do the following: 1) Verify that it still works as I have no hardware to test it. Once you confirmed, it's going to show up in -next. So please do that ASAP, i.e. yesterday. 2) Go through

Re: [PATCH 0/8 V4] x86/intel_rdt: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: This series has minor changes with respect to V3 addressing all your comments. Was wondering if there was any feedback or if we still have a chance for 4.12

Re: [PATCH 0/8 V4] x86/intel_rdt: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

On Fri, 14 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Thu, 13 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 12 Apr 2017, Shivappa Vikas wrote: This series has minor changes with respect to V3 addressing all your comments. Was wondering if there was any feedback or if we still have a chance for 4.12

Re: [PATCH 0/8 V4] x86/intel_rdt: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

Hello Thomas, This series has minor changes with respect to V3 addressing all your comments. Was wondering if there was any feedback or if we still have a chance for 4.12. Thanks, Vikas On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Sending another version of MBA patch series with changes to V3

Re: [PATCH 0/8 V4] x86/intel_rdt: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

Hello Thomas, This series has minor changes with respect to V3 addressing all your comments. Was wondering if there was any feedback or if we still have a chance for 4.12. Thanks, Vikas On Fri, 7 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Sending another version of MBA patch series with changes to V3

Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/intel_rdt: Fix issue when mkdir uses a freed CLOSid

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Luck, Tony wrote: On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:20:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: That's just wrong. The proper behaviour for a new control group is, that at the time when it is created it copies the CBM values of the default

Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/intel_rdt: Fix issue when mkdir uses a freed CLOSid

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Luck, Tony wrote: On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 05:20:24PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: That's just wrong. The proper behaviour for a new control group is, that at the time when it is created it copies the CBM values of the default

Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/intel_rct/mba: Add MBA structures and initialize MBA

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: /** + * struct rdt_domain - group of cpus sharing an RDT resource + * @list: all instances of this resource + * @id:unique id for this instance + * @cpu_mask: which cpus share this

Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/intel_rct/mba: Add MBA structures and initialize MBA

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: /** + * struct rdt_domain - group of cpus sharing an RDT resource + * @list: all instances of this resource + * @id:unique id for this instance + * @cpu_mask: which cpus share this

Re: [PATCH 1/8] Documentation, x86: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +Cache resource(L3/L2) subdirectory contains the following files: -"num_closids": The number of CLOSIDs which are valid for this - resource. The kernel uses the smallest number of -

Re: [PATCH 1/8] Documentation, x86: Intel Memory bandwidth allocation

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: +Cache resource(L3/L2) subdirectory contains the following files: -"num_closids": The number of CLOSIDs which are valid for this - resource. The kernel uses the smallest number of -

Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/intel_rdt: Fix issue when mkdir uses a freed CLOSid

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Subject: x86/intel_rdt: Fix issue when mkdir uses a freed CLOSid This subject line is useless again. It want's to be descriptive. "Fix issue" Which issue? Each resctrl directory has one CLOSid

Re: [PATCH 1/3] x86/intel_rdt: Fix issue when mkdir uses a freed CLOSid

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Subject: x86/intel_rdt: Fix issue when mkdir uses a freed CLOSid This subject line is useless again. It want's to be descriptive. "Fix issue" Which issue? Each resctrl directory has one CLOSid

Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/intel_rct/mba: Add MBA structures and initialize MBA

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Tracy Smith wrote: Hi All, No JTAG available and need to understand why Linux 4.8.3 doesn't boot on a x86_64 corei7-64. Hangs at the typical "Starting kernel" location after the last message of the U-boot. The bootcmd is given below. Do you see the issue when you

Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/intel_rct/mba: Add MBA structures and initialize MBA

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Tracy Smith wrote: Hi All, No JTAG available and need to understand why Linux 4.8.3 doesn't boot on a x86_64 corei7-64. Hangs at the typical "Starting kernel" location after the last message of the U-boot. The bootcmd is given below. Do you see the issue when you

Re: [PATCH] x86/cqm: Cqm3 Documentation

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Explains the design for the interface Explains the design for the new resctrl based cqm interface. A followup with design document after the requirements for new cqm was reviewed : https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=148891934720489 Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH] x86/cqm: Cqm3 Documentation

On Mon, 3 Apr 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Explains the design for the interface Explains the design for the new resctrl based cqm interface. A followup with design document after the requirements for new cqm was reviewed : https://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel=148891934720489 Signed-off-by:

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Implement "update" mode when writing schemata file

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony wrote: +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_schemata.c @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static bool cbm_validate(unsigned long var, struct rdt_resource *r) * Read one cache bit mask (hex). Check that it is valid for the current * resource type. */ -static int

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Implement "update" mode when writing schemata file

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony wrote: +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/cpu/intel_rdt_schemata.c @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ static bool cbm_validate(unsigned long var, struct rdt_resource *r) * Read one cache bit mask (hex). Check that it is valid for the current * resource type. */ -static int

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Implement "update" mode when writing schemata file

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony wrote: +Reading/writing the schemata file +- +Reading the schemata file will show the state of all resources +on all domains. When writing you only need to specify those values +which

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Implement "update" mode when writing schemata file

On Fri, 31 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Luck, Tony wrote: +Reading/writing the schemata file +- +Reading the schemata file will show the state of all resources +on all domains. When writing you only need to specify those values +which

Re: [PATCH 7/8] x86/intel_rdt: schemata file support for MBA prepare\

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Subject: x86/intel_rdt: schemata file support for MBA prepare I have no idea what MBA prepare is. Is that yet another variant aside of MBE? Add support to introduce generic APIs for control validation

Re: [PATCH 7/8] x86/intel_rdt: schemata file support for MBA prepare\

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Subject: x86/intel_rdt: schemata file support for MBA prepare I have no idea what MBA prepare is. Is that yet another variant aside of MBE? Add support to introduce generic APIs for control validation

Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/intel_rdt: hotcpu updates for RDT

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: WARN_ON(c->x86_cache_occ_scale != cqm_l3_scale); @@ -1585,12 +1580,17 @@ static int intel_cqm_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu) static int intel_cqm_cpu_exit(unsigned int cpu) { + struct intel_pqr_state *state = _cpu(pqr_state, cpu);

Re: [PATCH 5/5] x86/intel_rdt: hotcpu updates for RDT

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: WARN_ON(c->x86_cache_occ_scale != cqm_l3_scale); @@ -1585,12 +1580,17 @@ static int intel_cqm_cpu_starting(unsigned int cpu) static int intel_cqm_cpu_exit(unsigned int cpu) { + struct intel_pqr_state *state = _cpu(pqr_state, cpu);

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Implement "update" mode when writing schemata file

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Fenghua Yu wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:51:58AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: From: Tony Luck The schemata file can have multiple lines and it is cumbersome to update from shell scripts. "from shell scripts" makes people a bit confused. Not just

Re: [PATCH] x86/intel_rdt: Implement "update" mode when writing schemata file

On Fri, 24 Mar 2017, Fenghua Yu wrote: On Fri, Mar 24, 2017 at 10:51:58AM -0700, Luck, Tony wrote: From: Tony Luck The schemata file can have multiple lines and it is cumbersome to update from shell scripts. "from shell scripts" makes people a bit confused. Not just shell scripts, C or

Re: [PATCH 6/8] x86/intel_rdt/mba: Add info directory files for MBA

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Add files in info directory for MBA. The files in the info directory are as follows : - num_closids: max number of closids for MBA which represents the max class of service user can configure. - min_bw:

Re: [PATCH 6/8] x86/intel_rdt/mba: Add info directory files for MBA

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: Add files in info directory for MBA. The files in the info directory are as follows : - num_closids: max number of closids for MBA which represents the max class of service user can configure. - min_bw:

Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/intel_rdt: info file support for MBA prepare

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: As a preparatory patch to MBA info file setup, generalize the info file setup to have the option to choose between different set of files. Although multiple cache resources have same info files, Memory

Re: [PATCH 5/8] x86/intel_rdt: info file support for MBA prepare

On Wed, 1 Mar 2017, Thomas Gleixner wrote: On Fri, 17 Feb 2017, Vikas Shivappa wrote: As a preparatory patch to MBA info file setup, generalize the info file setup to have the option to choose between different set of files. Although multiple cache resources have same info files, Memory

  1   2   >