Re: [PATCH v3 07/47] arm64: mpam: Re-initialise MPAM regs when CPU comes online

Ben Horgan
2026-01-19T13:38:18Z

Hi Catalin,

On 1/15/26 18:14, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 04:58:34PM +0000, Ben Horgan wrote:
>> From: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>>
>> Now that the MPAM system registers are expected to have values that change,
>> reprogram them based on the previous value when a CPU is brought online.
>>
>> Previously MPAM's 'default PARTID' of 0 was always used for MPAM in
>> kernel-space as this is the PARTID that hardware guarantees to
>> reset. Because there are a limited number of PARTID, this value is exposed
>> to user-space, meaning resctrl changes to the resctrl default group would
>> also affect kernel threads. Instead, use the task's PARTID value for
>> kernel work on behalf of user-space too. The default of 0 is kept for both
>> user-space and kernel-space when MPAM is not enabled.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@huawei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since rfc:
>> CONFIG_MPAM -> CONFIG_ARM64_MPAM
>> Check mpam_enabled
>> Comment about relying on ERET for synchronisation
>> Update commit message
>> ---
>> arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c | 19 ++++++++++++-------
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> index c840a93b9ef9..0cdfb3728f43 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cpufeature.c
>> @@ -86,6 +86,7 @@
>> #include <asm/kvm_host.h>
>> #include <asm/mmu.h>
>> #include <asm/mmu_context.h>
>> +#include <asm/mpam.h>
>> #include <asm/mte.h>
>> #include <asm/hypervisor.h>
>> #include <asm/processor.h>
>> @@ -2483,13 +2484,17 @@ test_has_mpam(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry, int scope)
>> static void
>> cpu_enable_mpam(const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *entry)
>> {
>> - /*
>> - * Access by the kernel (at EL1) should use the reserved PARTID
>> - * which is configured unrestricted. This avoids priority-inversion
>> - * where latency sensitive tasks have to wait for a task that has
>> - * been throttled to release the lock.
>> - */
>> - write_sysreg_s(0, SYS_MPAM1_EL1);
>
> Is this comment about priority inversion no longer valid?

Yes, will drop it.

I see thread
> switching sets the same value for both MPAM0 and MPAM1 registers but I
> couldn't find an explanation why this is now better when it wasn't
> before.

I touch on it in the cover letter. It is the way it is done for x86 and
so sensible to make it the default. All partids are usable from
user-space and user-space can't bypass MPAM controls by doing the work
in the kernel.

There is a proposal from Babu at AMD, PLZA, which he presented at LPC
which would give a new interface to have different configuration,
closid, for userspace and kernel space. We should be able to use this
with MPAM too.

>
> MPAM1 will also be inherited by IRQ handlers AFAICT.

Yes, this is a disadvantage of having MPAM1 and MPAM0 change together.

>
>> + int cpu = smp_processor_id();
>> + u64 regval = 0;
>> +
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64_MPAM) && static_branch_likely(&mpam_enabled))
>> + regval = READ_ONCE(per_cpu(arm64_mpam_current, cpu));
>> +
>> + write_sysreg_s(regval, SYS_MPAM1_EL1);
>> + isb();
>> +
>> + /* Synchronising the EL0 write is left until the ERET to EL0 */
>> + write_sysreg_s(regval, SYS_MPAM0_EL1);
>
> I mentioned before, is it worth waiting until ERET?

Just for documentation. I can change it if you prefer.

>
> Related to this, do LDTR/STTR use MPAM0 or MPAM1? I couldn't figure out
> from the Arm ARM. If they use MPAM0, then we need the ISB early for the
> uaccess routines, at least in the thread switching path (an earlier
> patch).
>

They use LDTR/STTR. MPAM doesn't care about which instruction is running.

Thanks,

Ben