From: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>
To: "ping.li" <leeonion.muyu@gmail.com>, james.morse@arm.com
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reinette.chatre@intel.com,
fenghuay@nvidia.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] arm_mpam: Only schedule mpam_enable work after first successful MSC probe
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2026 10:25:42 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <558c0816-604a-49b6-8843-66ea5df28d3e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260908024846.2063161-1-ping.li@horizon.auto>
Hi Ping,
On 08/09/2026 03:48, ping.li wrote:
> From: Ping Li <leeonion.muyu@gmail.com>
>
> mpam_discovery_cpu_online() sets new_device_probed unconditionally after
> processing each reachable MSC. Once an MSC has already been probed
> (msc->probed is true), later CPUs sharing it skip
> mpam_msc_hw_probe() but still leave err at its default value of 0.
> As a result, new_device_probed is still set to true, causing
> mpam_enable_work to be scheduled again even though no new hardware was
> probed.
This patch is an improvement but, thinking again, it looks there is scope getting rid of
mpam_enable() altogether. Rather than walking the list after each hw probe we could increment an
atomic variable, similar to what is done in mpam_msc_drv_probe(), and then just schedule
mpam_enable_once(). What do you think?
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Set new_device_probed only when mpam_msc_hw_probe() is called and
> succeeds.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ping Li <leeonion.muyu@gmail.com>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - Drop the Fixes: tag, as the extra mpam_enable() calls cause no real
> harm: schedule_work() merges the duplicate work, and mpam_enable()
> is a no-op until all MSCs have been probed. This is a cleanup, not a
> bug fix.
>
> drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c | 6 ++++--
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
> index 2f09f4b78bd3..fefdcf588932 100644
> --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
> @@ -1866,13 +1866,15 @@ static int mpam_discovery_cpu_online(unsigned int cpu)
> continue;
>
> mutex_lock(&msc->probe_lock);
> - if (!msc->probed)
> + if (!msc->probed) {
> err = mpam_msc_hw_probe(msc);
> + if (!err)
> + new_device_probed = true;
> + }
> mutex_unlock(&msc->probe_lock);
>
> if (err)
> break;
> - new_device_probed = true;
> }
>
> if (new_device_probed && !err)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-09-10 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-08-18 13:06 [PATCH] " ping.li
2026-09-08 2:48 ` [PATCH v2] " ping.li
2026-09-10 9:25 ` Ben Horgan [this message]
2026-09-17 9:19 ` Yin Li
2026-09-15 3:18 ` [PATCH v3] arm_mpam: Use an atomic counter to schedule mpam_enable_once() Ping Li
2026-09-15 9:48 ` Ben Horgan
2026-09-15 11:56 ` [PATCH v4] " Ping Li
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=558c0816-604a-49b6-8843-66ea5df28d3e@arm.com \
--to=ben.horgan@arm.com \
--cc=fenghuay@nvidia.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=leeonion.muyu@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=reinette.chatre@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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®