Re: [PATCH v6 14/18] fs/resctrl: Control visibility of global per-CPU kernel mode group files

[Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>]

Hi Reinette,

On 10/19/26 17:00, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
> 
> On 10/19/26 9:31 AM, Babu Moger wrote:
>> Hi Reinette,
>>
>> On 10/15/26 10:46, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>> Hi Babu,
>>>
>>> On 10/1/26 8:10 AM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>> The kmode_cpus and kmode_cpus_list files are specific to the
>>>> RESCTRL_GLOBAL_ENABLE_PER_CPU kernel mode. These files are created in a
>>>> hidden state when an rdtgroup is created.
>>>>
>>>> Introduce resctrl_kmode_global_files_show() to manage the visibility of
>>>> these files based on whether the global per-CPU kernel mode is enabled or
>>>> disabled.
>>>
>>> This does not sound right and does not match the patch. The visibility of files
>>> is per group, not globally whether the mode is enabled or not, right?
>>>
>>> It is ok to have cryptic changelogs when changes are small and simple but these
>>> changes are not small and simple.
>>
>> "The kmode_cpus and kmode_cpus_list files are specific to the RESCTRL_GLOBAL_ENABLE_PER_CPU kernel mode. These files are created in a hidden state when an rdtgroup is created.
> 
> Could the context please help the reader a bit more? Some items that could help:
> - *why* are these files specific to global per-CPU kernel mode? (mention that it is used by user space
>     to do the per-CPU enable/disable of the mode)
> - *why* is it created in a hidden state? (mention that a resource group can only be assigned
>    to the global per-CPU kernel mode after it has been created via a separate resctrl file)
> 

Sure. Will add that.

>>> Introduce resctrl_kmode_global_files_show() to manage the visibility
>> of these files based on whether a resource group backs the global
> 
> hmmm ... resctrl_kmode_global_files_show() does not actually do any
> checks to ensure the resource group backs the global per-CPU kernel mode.
> 

Yes. Will fix this.

> 
>> per-CPU kernel mode. Hide the files when the group is no longer
>> associated with the mode.
> Could the patches be organized so that this becomes a symmetrical change
> that highlights when files become visible and when they become invisible to support
> the description within this changelog?

I didn't quite understand this comment. Could you please elaborate?

Thanks,
Babu