From: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>
To: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>,
James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
Cc: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@intel.com>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghuay@nvidia.com>,
Shaopeng Tan <tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Zeng Heng <zengheng4@huawei.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm_mpam: Apply T241-MPAM-6 to 63-bit counters
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2026 08:42:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ae0cb92c-bd7f-488f-bedd-c089b2965d08@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8618c244-eadc-4226-ae5c-86b719ac5e7d@arm.com>
Hi Ben,
On 7/28/2026 5:48 AM, Ben Horgan wrote:
> External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
>
>
> Hi Shanker,
>
> On 7/27/26 20:13, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
>> T241-MPAM-6 causes all MBWU counter formats to count 64-byte
>> requests instead of bytes. Commit dc48eb1ff27c excluded the 63-bit
> As described in that commit message, T241-MPAM-6 does not affect LWD counters. Is there another
> canonical description of T241-MPAM-6. Otherwise, this just looks like you've discovered a new h/w
> bug :)
The original commit message for dc48eb1ff27c explicitly states that
T241-MPAM-6 affects both
MSMON_MBWU and MSMON_MBWU_L:
"The registers MSMON_MBWU_L and MSMON_MBWU return the number of
requests rather than the number
of bytes transferred."
LWD (when HAS_LONG=1) selects the width/format of MSMON_MBWU_L; it does
not identify a separate
register outside the scope described above.
>> MSMON_MBWU_LWD format while scaling the shorter counters. Systems
>> selecting the preferred 63-bit counter consequently report bandwidth
>> values that are 64 times too small.
> So, the MSC with IIDR MPAM_IIDR_NVIDIA_T241 has different sizes of long bandwidth counters between
> RIS. This seems a bit unusual. Please could you share which RIS have 44 bit long counters and which
> have 63 bits. (MPAMF_MBWUMON_IDR.LWD gives this)
T241 does not implement RIS (MPAMF_IDR.HAS_RIS=0). Its L3 MSC implements
a 63-bit long bandwidth
counter, as indicated by HAS_LONG=1 and LWD=1; therefore, there are no
per-RIS differences in
counter width.
The mpam_feat_msmon_mbwu_63counter exclusion in dc48eb1ff27c means the
workaround is not applied
to the long-counter format implemented by the T241 L3 MSC. This patch
removes that exclusion and
makes the implementation consistent with the original erratum
description and commit message.
> Thanks,
>
> Ben
>
>> Apply the scale to both the sampled value and overflow correction for
>> the 63-bit format. Unsigned arithmetic retains modulo-u64 behavior
>> when the scaled counter range exceeds u64.
>>
>> Fixes: dc48eb1ff27c ("arm_mpam: Add workaround for T241-MPAM-6")
>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240816131432.993859-1-sdonthineni@nvidia.com/
>> Signed-off-by: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c | 6 ++----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
>> index 2f09f4b78bd3b..b68f5599e8dbe 100644
>> --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
>> +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c
>> @@ -1196,8 +1196,7 @@ static u64 mpam_msmon_overflow_val(enum mpam_device_features type,
>> {
>> u64 overflow_val = __mpam_msmon_overflow_val(type);
>>
>> - if (mpam_has_quirk(T241_MBW_COUNTER_SCALE_64, msc) &&
>> - type != mpam_feat_msmon_mbwu_63counter)
>> + if (mpam_has_quirk(T241_MBW_COUNTER_SCALE_64, msc))
>> overflow_val *= 64;
>>
>> return overflow_val;
>> @@ -1293,8 +1292,7 @@ static void __ris_msmon_read(void *arg)
>> now = FIELD_GET(MSMON___VALUE, now);
>> }
>>
>> - if (mpam_has_quirk(T241_MBW_COUNTER_SCALE_64, msc) &&
>> - m->type != mpam_feat_msmon_mbwu_63counter)
>> + if (mpam_has_quirk(T241_MBW_COUNTER_SCALE_64, msc))
>> now *= 64;
>>
>> if (nrdy)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-28 13:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-07-27 19:13 Shanker Donthineni
2026-07-27 19:26 ` Fenghua Yu
2026-07-28 10:48 ` Ben Horgan
2026-07-28 13:42 ` Shanker Donthineni [this message]
2026-07-28 13:51 ` Ben Horgan
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=ae0cb92c-bd7f-488f-bedd-c089b2965d08@nvidia.com \
--to=sdonthineni@nvidia.com \
--cc=ben.horgan@arm.com \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=fenghuay@nvidia.com \
--cc=james.morse@arm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=reinette.chatre@intel.com \
--cc=tan.shaopeng@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=zengheng4@huawei.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®