Re: [RFC PATCH 13/19] x86/resctrl: Add PLZA state tracking and context switch handling

["Moger, Babu" <bmoger@amd.com>]

Hi Reinette,

On 2/10/2026 10:17 AM, Reinette Chatre wrote:
> Hi Babu,
> 
> On 1/28/26 9:44 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/28/2026 11:41 AM, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jan 28, 2026 at 10:01:39AM -0600, Moger, Babu wrote:
>>>>> On 1/27/2026 4:30 PM, Luck, Tony wrote:
>>>> Babu,
>>>>
>>>> I've read a bit more of the code now and I think I understand more.
>>>>
>>>> Some useful additions to your explanation.
>>>>
>>>> 1) Only one CTRL group can be marked as PLZA
>>>
>>> Yes. Correct.
> 
> Why limit it to one CTRL_MON group and why not support it for MON groups?

There can be only one PLZA configuration in a system. The values in the 
MSR_IA32_PQR_PLZA_ASSOC register (RMID, RMID_EN, CLOSID, CLOSID_EN) must 
be identical across all logical processors. The only field that may 
differ is PLZA_EN.

I was initially unsure which RMID should be used when PLZA is enabled on 
MON groups.

After re-evaluating, enabling PLZA on MON groups is still feasible:

1. Only one group in the system can have PLZA enabled.
2. If PLZA is enabled on CTRL_MON group then we cannot enable PLZA on 
MON group.
3. If PLZA is enabled on the CTRL_MON group, then the CLOSID and RMID of 
the CTRL_MON group can be written.
4. If PLZA is enabled on a MON group, then the CLOSID of the CTRL_MON 
group can be used, while the RMID of the MON group can be written.

I am thinking this approach should work.

> 
> Limiting it to a single CTRL group seems restrictive in a few ways:
> 1) It requires that the "PLZA" group has a dedicated CLOSID. This reduces the
>     number of use cases that can be supported. Consider, for example, an existing
>     "high priority" resource group and a "low priority" resource group. The user may
>     just want to let the tasks in the "low priority" resource group run as "high priority"
>     when in CPL0. This of course may depend on what resources are allocated, for example
>     cache may need more care, but if, for example, user is only interested in memory
>     bandwidth allocation this seems a reasonable use case?
> 2) Similar to what Tony [1] mentioned this does not enable what the hardware is
>     capable of in terms of number of different control groups/CLOSID that can be
>     assigned to MSR_IA32_PQR_PLZA_ASSOC. Why limit PLZA to one CLOSID?
> 3) The feature seems to support RMID in MSR_IA32_PQR_PLZA_ASSOC similar to
>     MSR_IA32_PQR_ASSOC. With this, it should be possible for user space to, for
>     example, create a resource group that contains tasks of interest and create
>     a monitor group within it that monitors all tasks' bandwidth usage when in CPL0.
>     This will give user space better insight into system behavior and from what I can
>     tell is supported by the feature but not enabled?


Yes, as long as PLZA is enabled on only one group in the entire system

> 
>>>
>>>> 2) It can't be the root/default group
>>>
>>> This is something I added to keep the default group in a un-disturbed,
> 
> Why was this needed?
> 

With the new approach mentioned about we can enable in default group also.

>>>
>>>> 3) It can't have sub monitor groups
> 
> Why not?

Ditto. With the new approach mentioned about we can enable in default 
group also.

> 
>>>> 4) It can't be pseudo-locked
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would a potential use case involve putting *all* tasks into the PLZA group? That
>>>> would avoid any additional context switch overhead as the PLZA MSR would never
>>>> need to change.
>>>
>>> Yes. That can be one use case.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If that is the case, maybe for the PLZA group we should allow user to
>>>> do:
>>>>
>>>> # echo '*' > tasks
> 
> Dedicating a resource group to "PLZA" seems restrictive while also adding many
> complications since this designation makes resource group behave differently and
> thus the files need to get extra "treatments" to handle this "PLZA" designation.
> 
> I am wondering if it will not be simpler to introduce just one new file, for example
> "tasks_cpl0" in both CTRL_MON and MON groups. When user space writes a task ID to the
> file it "enables" PLZA for this task and that group's CLOSID and RMID is the associated
> task's "PLZA" CLOSID and RMID. This gives user space the flexibility to use the same
> resource group to manage user space and kernel space allocations while also supporting
> various monitoring use cases. This still supports the "dedicate a resource group to PLZA"
> use case where user space can create a new resource group with certain allocations but the
> "tasks" file will be empty and "tasks_cpl0" contains the tasks needing to run with
> the resource group's allocations when in CPL0.

Yes. We should be able do that. We need both tasks_cpl0 and cpus_cpl0.

We need make sure only one group can configured in the system and not 
allow in other groups when it is already enabled.

Thanks
Babu

> 
> Reinette
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/aXpgragcLS2L8ROe@agluck-desk3/
>