From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.227]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE9A823908B; Sat, 25 Oct 2025 09:01:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.227 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761382896; cv=none; b=VlXKn36fogdVgI8jZ3ZZAeRN+UzATz239UghobfTYxAs/yKfjfmRRDmsld2y17DLPDMab4fpJkNZxY6uMQGHQ4IuV1fxX+F8rcKM7HNyqoUaI+ZEHIiY1gheQAtvTFmGx6XRvYrYeJexORkFBwLeXOnGkOcgWB/x0aJbsi1SNlk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761382896; c=relaxed/simple; bh=s3yHYOmdNRzmbUWxmisvMesDkkONnNF3GvA5TN7rEcs=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=G4WFAI01XXCDrUECmRhqEInvWeVb4LzC69ql9bUhD6JOdgREx9DpXAlfCy73WBUUi3aaYpTu+pRiCphvSpAWhOCgaz6Q6iEKaIvdZ/DvhoGlM0i8WQ/i1D/pYjz925VPa0io8zmOeLS2B4gmNvn5+/owlKS5iUDLcHURQ3vzcyY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b=OJbRp5ul; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.227 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=h-partners.com header.i=@h-partners.com header.b="OJbRp5ul" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=h-partners.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=AO4386yNxVFuR4ViyLt/237opsz9K4kw/MJn/OvQtBc=; b=OJbRp5ulXukGYxbxg6Us0kZljfYUxHttOzAsKE8A4C0lq3GWANRknkxTJxJIR95ln9RmWRitF LgaYa5Rt5TSMfFGpJWiDschNI0RaNIe61sA/j/DBMzEEvb+1B3TP0xakdl64yW9SG4TTSpO5t3d e/M4ZWdkItO8cqdW5+Qv8hc= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.234]) by canpmsgout12.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4cttz62KvxznTVF; Sat, 25 Oct 2025 17:00:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemf100008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.222]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C327E140143; Sat, 25 Oct 2025 17:01:29 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.24] (10.174.178.24) by kwepemf100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Sat, 25 Oct 2025 17:01:27 +0800 Message-ID: <1c037f72-485a-567b-bf8f-489255330de8@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2025 17:01:27 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.11.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH mpam mpam/snapshot/v6.14-rc1] arm64/mpam: Fix MBWU monitor overflow handling Content-Language: en-US To: Ben Horgan , CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , References: <20251017185645.26604-25-james.morse@arm.com> <20251022133913.629859-1-zengheng4@huawei.com> <8e22c81e-5e78-41e0-a81e-0f9826e5edf0@arm.com> From: Zeng Heng In-Reply-To: <8e22c81e-5e78-41e0-a81e-0f9826e5edf0@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.17) To kwepemf100008.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.222) Hi Ben, On 2025/10/23 0:17, Ben Horgan wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Zeng Heng >> --- >> drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c | 8 +++++--- >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c >> index 0dd048279e02..06f3ec9887d2 100644 >> --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c >> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c >> @@ -1101,7 +1101,8 @@ static void __ris_msmon_read(void *arg) >> clean_msmon_ctl_val(&cur_ctl); >> gen_msmon_ctl_flt_vals(m, &ctl_val, &flt_val); >> config_mismatch = cur_flt != flt_val || >> - cur_ctl != (ctl_val | MSMON_CFG_x_CTL_EN); >> + (cur_ctl & ~MSMON_CFG_x_CTL_OFLOW_STATUS) != >> + (ctl_val | MSMON_CFG_x_CTL_EN); > > This only considers 31 bit counters. I would expect any change here to > consider all lengths of counter. > Sorry, regardless of whether the counter is 32-bit or 64-bit, the config_mismatch logic should be handled the same way here. Am I wrong? Best Regards, Zeng Heng