Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-132003-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1711674410.git.babu.moger@amd.com> <0db75c94886da62b8da498ef159d8fe27b0b3811.1711674410.git.babu.moger@amd.com>
 <CALPaoCgRtYLnzpkL6uVjb+LvBbxD8ANRuzACP1UQ=rkzk8TCqg@mail.gmail.com> <08c8162a-f7d7-4e78-8a2a-d9c86780429c@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <08c8162a-f7d7-4e78-8a2a-d9c86780429c@intel.com>
From: Peter Newman <peternewman@google.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 12:01:04 -0700
Message-ID: <CALPaoCjTbTStJiSYRCtcdDgqyNvFrbF3WH3iW18nq8Qk5D4BZg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 07/17] x86/resctrl: Add support to enable/disable
 ABMC feature
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>
Cc: Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>, corbet@lwn.net, fenghua.yu@intel.com, 
	tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, 
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, 
	paulmck@kernel.org, rdunlap@infradead.org, tj@kernel.org, 
	peterz@infradead.org, yanjiewtw@gmail.com, kim.phillips@amd.com, 
	lukas.bulwahn@gmail.com, seanjc@google.com, jmattson@google.com, 
	leitao@debian.org, jpoimboe@kernel.org, rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com, 
	kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, jithu.joseph@intel.com, kai.huang@intel.com, 
	kan.liang@linux.intel.com, daniel.sneddon@linux.intel.com, 
	pbonzini@redhat.com, sandipan.das@amd.com, ilpo.jarvinen@linux.intel.com, 
	maciej.wieczor-retman@intel.com, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, eranian@google.com, james.morse@arm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Reinette,

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:43=E2=80=AFAM Reinette Chatre
<reinette.chatre@intel.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> On 4/3/2024 5:30 PM, Peter Newman wrote:
>
> ...
> >
> > Presumably this would be called holding the rdtgroup_mutex? Perhaps a
> > lockdep assertion somewhere would be appropriate?
> >
>
> Considering that you are digging into the implementation already, can
> it be assumed that you approve (while considering how "soft RMID" may
> build on this) of the new interface as described in the cover letter?

Yes, I believe we came back to an agreement when discussing the last
series. I'll look over the cover letter in this series just to make
sure everything is there.

-Peter