From: Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@nvidia.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
Tony Luck <tony.luck@intel.com>, Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com>,
Chen Yu <yu.c.chen@intel.com>, Babu Moger <babu.moger@amd.com>,
Drew Fustini <fustini@kernel.org>,
Vikram Sethi <vsethi@nvidia.com>,
Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>,
Newton Liu <newtonl@nvidia.com>,
Richard Cheng <icheng@nvidia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@nvidia.com>
Subject: [PATCH RFC v2 07/19] arm_mpam: Refine L3 topology and class selection
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2026 10:22:33 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260831172245.42253-8-fenghuay@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260831172245.42253-1-fenghuay@nvidia.com>
After enabling memory-level MSCs, the existing class-picking heuristics
still treat every candidate like an L3 cache MSC. That rejects valid
memory classes for MBWU counters and applies L3 egress checks to MBA
classes on CPU-less or system-wide affinities, leaving no monitor or
control class selected on affected platforms.
Adjust the heuristics so memory classes can back MBWU directly, L3
topology matching is only required for level-3 MBA candidates, and
traffic matching is skipped when the class already spans all CPUs.
Also tolerate components with no online CPUs once at least one
component has matched.
Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>
Signed-off-by: Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@nvidia.com>
---
drivers/resctrl/mpam_resctrl.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_resctrl.c b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_resctrl.c
index 47a7b18d841d..72302f6021d7 100644
--- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_resctrl.c
+++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_resctrl.c
@@ -865,10 +865,12 @@ static bool topology_matches_l3(struct mpam_class *victim)
{
int cpu, err;
struct mpam_component *victim_iter;
+ bool matched_once = false;
lockdep_assert_cpus_held();
cpumask_var_t __free(free_cpumask_var) tmp_cpumask = CPUMASK_VAR_NULL;
+
if (!alloc_cpumask_var(&tmp_cpumask, GFP_KERNEL))
return false;
@@ -882,8 +884,11 @@ static bool topology_matches_l3(struct mpam_class *victim)
}
cpu = cpumask_any_and(&victim_iter->affinity, cpu_online_mask);
- if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids))
+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(cpu >= nr_cpu_ids)) {
+ if (matched_once)
+ continue;
return false;
+ }
cpumask_clear(tmp_cpumask);
err = find_l3_equivalent_bitmask(cpu, tmp_cpumask);
@@ -903,6 +908,7 @@ static bool topology_matches_l3(struct mpam_class *victim)
return false;
}
+ matched_once = true;
}
return true;
@@ -1041,13 +1047,15 @@ static void mpam_resctrl_pick_mba(void)
continue;
}
- if (!topology_matches_l3(class)) {
+ if (class->level == 3 && !topology_matches_l3(class)) {
pr_debug("class %u topology doesn't match L3\n",
class->level);
continue;
}
- if (!traffic_matches_l3(class)) {
+ /* Check memory at egress from L3 for MSC with L3 */
+ if (!cpumask_equal(&class->affinity, cpu_possible_mask) &&
+ !traffic_matches_l3(class)) {
pr_debug("class %u traffic doesn't match L3 egress\n",
class->level);
continue;
@@ -1175,8 +1183,9 @@ static void mpam_resctrl_pick_counters(void)
}
if (class_has_usable_mbwu(class) &&
- topology_matches_l3(class) &&
- traffic_matches_l3(class)) {
+ ((class->type == MPAM_CLASS_MEMORY) ||
+ (topology_matches_l3(class) &&
+ traffic_matches_l3(class)))) {
pr_debug("class %u has usable MBWU, and matches L3 topology and traffic\n",
class->level);
@@ -1314,6 +1323,9 @@ static int mpam_resctrl_pick_domain_id(int cpu, struct mpam_component *comp)
if (class->type == MPAM_CLASS_CACHE)
return comp->comp_id;
+ if (mpam_class_memory(class))
+ return comp->comp_id;
+
if (topology_matches_l3(class)) {
/* Use the corresponding L3 component ID as the domain ID */
int id = get_cpu_cacheinfo_id(cpu, 3);
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-31 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-31 17:22 [PATCH RFC v2 00/19] arm,fs/resctrl: ARM MPAM MB_NODE support Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 01/19] resctrl: De-hardcode L3 monitor infrastructure Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 02/19] resctrl: Expose MBA MBM counter assignment sysfs Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 03/19] resctrl: name node-scoped monitor domains mon_NODE_<id> Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 04/19] resctrl: Add node-scope MBM total event Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 05/19] resctrl: Make MBM paths resource-aware Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 06/19] arm_mpam: Support memory-level MSCs and ABMC per class Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` Fenghua Yu [this message]
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 08/19] arm_mpam: Include all MSC components during domain setup Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 09/19] fs/resctrl: Take memory hotplug lock whenever taking CPU hotplug lock Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 10/19] arm_mpam: Handle CPU-less numa nodes Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 11/19] arm_mpam: Emulate MB control with node-scoped MB_NODE control Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 12/19] arm_mpam: resctrl: Add NUMA node notifier for domain online/offline Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 13/19] resctrl: Add mbm_assign_scope_mode for native assignment file names Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 14/19] Documentation: resctrl: document mbm_assign_scope_mode Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 15/19] Documentation: arm64: mpam: document memory-level MB control and NUMA nodes Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 16/19] Documentation: resctrl: document NODE-scoped MBA domains and mon_NODE monitoring Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 17/19] Documentation: resctrl: document MB_NODE emulation example on ARM MPAM Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 18/19] arm_mpam: Add KUnit test for CPU-less NUMA node affinity Fenghua Yu
2026-08-31 17:22 ` [PATCH RFC v2 19/19] selftests/resctrl: Add MB emulation test for ARM MPAM Fenghua Yu
2026-09-01 9:37 ` [PATCH RFC v2 00/19] arm,fs/resctrl: ARM MPAM MB_NODE support Richard Cheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20260831172245.42253-8-fenghuay@nvidia.com \
--to=fenghuay@nvidia.com \
--cc=Dave.Martin@arm.com \
--cc=babu.moger@amd.com \
--cc=ben.horgan@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=fustini@kernel.org \
--cc=icheng@nvidia.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=newtonl@nvidia.com \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=sdonthineni@nvidia.com \
--cc=tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com \
--cc=tony.luck@intel.com \
--cc=vsethi@nvidia.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=yu.c.chen@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox