From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52897C43458 for ; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 15:49:31 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:In-Reply-To:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=cF3oUXtlWczJf2CkdqLNOlQ00s3AVE/oaTPL/XyKwU0=; b=jphffuSMqfJA74WP227EoasPv6 m2f5gPyp19t3ioLmXYhbK5shtUf7rZwpiOsdYYS/KZ8MSIi5aDYEySk8VY89lRqw52vRV5UYlpf2M BxMHPdju3v0gJ6larOKxGjnhTv0kPUZAccoNddEIV46zA7nDXS2aUE9G1f1MW9QlCYdrJjq383+2E IKjUDpocYzPtIM7MJJb9cVyE53UhxAuQKIGK9UNSlZUlXRJgSu2JgcsE09b1b8t5t9HzDk8G03b/J klZSzU+moDh+iooPpI7EM7N3a/oJHHd6yTy4ZpGch2RYHR0T7VLCJhAkL6BtPcDyVaYEAkefI29d6 5MSC/qsA==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wglZV-0000000CxBA-0sfK; Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:49:25 +0000 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.99.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1wglZS-0000000Cx9F-2REw for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:49:23 +0000 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BCC51BCA; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 08:49:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.2.212.8] (e134344.arm.com [10.2.212.8]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9C5AA3F7B4; Mon, 6 Jul 2026 08:49:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=arm.com; s=foss; t=1783352960; bh=4pV7GGRE4+B12sGcbtHLfldXfMh6UfXhgLyVeuaZ+hs=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=MOHAloydZ3OtDpev36IzbSM1TojqUQx0V2RZw12oHqukAvb7FfkRzJ2CdCcJP4sQC Ue3FBf008FZCN2yv/arqAjGKDGK9EQlC8x10GO7LFNumliK9tQTKmljfS3XSQLcQx9 iLeq33o4FCGFfCf+ghHJ/xGST9lNKzR0BNfWVsi8= Message-ID: <49436a6b-ab0c-4c57-8eb7-a332cd6c6f6e@arm.com> Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2026 16:49:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Thunderbird Daily Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] x86,fs/resctrl,arm_mpam: Factor MBA parse-time conversion to be per-arch To: Reinette Chatre Cc: james.morse@arm.com, fenghuay@nvidia.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com, corbet@lwn.net, x86@kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, dave.martin@arm.com References: <20260515140612.1205251-1-ben.horgan@arm.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Ben Horgan In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.9.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20260706_084922_693616_E906FD50 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 17.31 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org Hi Reinette, On 6/5/26 19:41, Reinette Chatre wrote: > Hi Ben, > > On 5/15/26 7:06 AM, Ben Horgan wrote: >> This is a new version of Dave Martin's patch [1] to delegate rounding of >> bandwidth control user values to the arch code. As there is now more than one >> architecture using resctrl, I split the original patch into two, a core resctrl >> patch and an x86 patch, and added an MPAM patch. Please let me know if the patch >> break down and ordering is sensible and whether the pattern should be followed >> for any future similar changes. > > This ordering is sensible to me. I find the patch breakdown a bit fragmented since > the logical resctrl fs change is split yet I also find that you did what was best > to ensure bisectability. I find small changes that are local to subsystems easier to > consider and believe it would be ideal to only have patches touching multiple > subsystems when it cannot be avoided, for example when doing otherwise would break > bisect. Even so, we may learn of better ways to do this when this series is considered > for x86 inclusion. Thanks for giving me your view on this, the review and the R-b's. I find all your proposed changes reasonable and have included them (and only those changes) in a v4 which I will post shortly. Thanks, Ben > > Reinette >