From: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>
To: Shanker Donthineni <sdonthineni@nvidia.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 14:51:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <be7c32d9-fa0f-4f53-bb15-591fc8b072f8@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ae0cb92c-bd7f-488f-bedd-c089b2965d08@nvidia.com>
Hi Shanker,
On 7/28/26 14:42, Shanker Donthineni wrote:
> 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.
Oh yes, you are right. The L_VALUE/LWD_VALUE naming is just internal to the driver.
>
>>> 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.
Ok, so there are no 44 bit counters?
Reviewed-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>
Thanks,
Ben
>
> 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)
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-07-28 13:52 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
2026-07-28 13:51 ` Ben Horgan [this message]
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=be7c32d9-fa0f-4f53-bb15-591fc8b072f8@arm.com \
--to=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=sdonthineni@nvidia.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®