Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37;
Message-ID: <af4ebcec-8a65-44fb-f00e-c7bbffe480e2@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2023 11:36:50 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux aarch64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 10/24] x86/resctrl: Allocate the cleanest CLOSID by
 searching closid_num_dirty_rmid
Content-Language: en-GB
To:     Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@intel.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Babu Moger <Babu.Moger@amd.com>,
        shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com,
        D Scott Phillips OS <scott@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        carl@os.amperecomputing.com, lcherian@marvell.com,
        bobo.shaobowang@huawei.com, tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com,
        baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, Jamie Iles <quic_jiles@quicinc.com>,
        Xin Hao <xhao@linux.alibaba.com>, peternewman@google.com,
        dfustini@baylibre.com, amitsinght@marvell.com
References: <20231025180345.28061-1-james.morse@arm.com>
 <20231025180345.28061-11-james.morse@arm.com>
 <acfa2d99-1bfe-48ff-9bb3-348ad27a6f60@intel.com>
From:   James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <acfa2d99-1bfe-48ff-9bb3-348ad27a6f60@intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 09/11/2023 17:46, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi James,
> 
> On 10/25/2023 11:03 AM, 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.
>>
>> Instead of allocating the first free CLOSID, on architectures where
>> CONFIG_RESCTRL_RMID_DEPENDS_ON_CLOSID is enabled, search
>> closid_num_dirty_rmid[] to find the cleanest CLOSID.
>>
>> The CLOSID found is returned to closid_alloc() for the free list
>> to be updated.
>>
>> Tested-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com>
>> Tested-by: Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
>> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v4:
>>  * Dropped stale section from comment
>>
>> Changes since v5:
>>  * Renamed some variables.
>>
>> No changes since v6
> 
> I use these patch changelogs to determine if I need to look at a
> patch for which I already provided a review tag. At first this
> patch appears to not deserve a second glance because I already provided a
> review tag and the above states "No changes since v6". Unfortunately
> this is false. I counted four changes. Now I cannot trust these
> "No changes since v6" and I need to dig out v6 to diff patches I already
> reviewed to determine if I need to look at them again. False patch
> changelogs make a patch series harder to review.

Sorry, looks like I applied the changes suggested by Babu, but didn't update this bit of
text that doesn't get committed. I added this 'No changes' text to any patch that didn't
have any entries.

You should be able to rely on people dropping Reviewed-by tags if there are substantial
changes. This is the normal threshold for re-reviewing a patch.


James