Re: [PATCH v2 20/29] arm_mpam: Allow configuration to be applied and restored during cpu online

[James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>]

Hi Fenghua,

On 25/09/2025 07:53, Fenghua Yu wrote:
> On 9/10/25 13:43, James Morse wrote:
>> When CPUs come online the MSC's original configuration should be restored.
>>
>> Add struct mpam_config to hold the configuration. This has a bitmap of
>> features that were modified. Once the maximum partid is known, allocate
>> a configuration array for each component, and reprogram each RIS
>> configuration from this.


>> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
>> index ec1db5f8b05c..7fd149109c75 100644
>> --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
>> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c

>> @@ -922,6 +991,40 @@ static void mpam_reset_msc(struct mpam_msc *msc, bool online)
>>       }
>>   }
>>   +static void mpam_reprogram_msc(struct mpam_msc *msc)
>> +{
>> +    u16 partid;
>> +    bool reset;
>> +    struct mpam_config *cfg;
>> +    struct mpam_msc_ris *ris;
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * No lock for mpam_partid_max as partid_max_published has been
>> +     * set by mpam_enabled(), so the values can no longer change.
>> +     */
>> +    mpam_assert_partid_sizes_fixed();
>> +
>> +    guard(srcu)(&mpam_srcu);

> mpam_srcu is locked in caller mpam_cpu_online(). It's unnecessary to call guard(srcu)
> (&mpam_srcu) here again for simpler logic and less overhead.

It's not simpler - as now the requirements for the innards of mpam_reprogram_msc() have to
spill out to the callers.
I also contest that its less overhead - this is used on the cpuhp path, I'd suspect the
'cost' can't even be measured.

The good news is at the end of the day this thing only has that one caller, so I'll change
this one ...


Thanks,

James