Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S932838AbdDEPmE (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:42:04 -0400
Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:33502 "EHLO
        Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1755739AbdDEPkl (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Wed, 5 Apr 2017 11:40:41 -0400
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 17:40:35 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Vikas Shivappa <vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>
cc: vikas.shivappa@intel.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        hpa@zytor.com, mingo@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, tony.luck@intel.com, fenghua.yu@intel.com,
        h.peter.anvin@intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] x86/intel_rct/mba: Add MBA structures and initialize
 MBA
In-Reply-To: <1491256652-18729-5-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1704051731200.2803@nanos>
References: <1491256652-18729-1-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com> <1491256652-18729-5-git-send-email-vikas.shivappa@linux.intel.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2370
Lines: 79

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 resource
> + * @ctrl_val:	array of cache or mem ctrl values (indexed by CLOSID)
> + * @new_cbm:	new cbm value to be loaded
> + * @have_new_cbm: did user provide new_cbm for this domain

The version which you removed below has the kernel-doc comments correct ....

> +/**
>   * struct rdt_resource - attributes of an RDT resource
>   * @enabled:			Is this feature enabled on this machine
>   * @capable:			Is this feature available on this machine
> @@ -78,6 +109,16 @@ struct rftype {
>   * @data_width:		Character width of data when displaying
>   * @min_cbm_bits:		Minimum number of consecutive bits to be set
>   *				in a cache bit mask
> + * @msr_update:		Function pointer to update QOS MSRs
> + * @max_delay:			Max throttle delay. Delay is the hardware
> + *				understandable value for memory bandwidth.
> + * @min_bw:			Minimum memory bandwidth percentage user
> + *				can request
> + * @bw_gran:			Granularity at which the memory bandwidth
> + *				is allocated
> + * @delay_linear:		True if memory b/w delay is in linear scale
> + * @mb_map:			Mapping of memory b/w percentage to
> + *				memory b/w delay values
>   * @domains:			All domains for this resource
>   * @msr_base:			Base MSR address for CBMs
>   * @cache_level:		Which cache level defines scope of this domain
> @@ -94,6 +135,14 @@ struct rdt_resource {
>  	int			min_cbm_bits;
>  	u32			default_ctrl;
>  	int			data_width;
> +	void (*msr_update)	(struct rdt_domain *d, struct msr_param *m,
> +				 struct rdt_resource *r);
> +	u32			max_delay;
> +	u32			min_bw;
> +	u32			bw_gran;
> +	u32			delay_linear;
> +	u32			*mb_map;

I don't know what other weird controls will be added over time, but we are
probably better off to have

struct cache_ctrl {
	int		cbm_len;
	int		min_cbm_bits;
};

struct mba_ctrl {
	u32			max_delay;
	u32			min_bw;
	u32			bw_gran;
	u32			delay_linear;
	u32			*mb_map;
};

and in then in struct rdt_resource:

       <common fields>
       union {
       		struct cache_ctrl	foo;
		struct mba_ctrl		bla;
	} ctrl;


That avoids that rdt_resource becomes a hodgepodge of unrelated or even
contradicting fields.

Hmm?

Thanks,

	tglx