Re: [PATCH v4 07/10] arm_mpam: prepare mon_sel locking for MPAM-Fb
Ben Horgan <[email protected]> Fri, 24 Jul 2026 17:56:44 +0100
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.kernel,gmane.linux.acpi.devel,gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Andre, On 7/23/26 16:54, Andre Przywara wrote: > The MSC MON_SEL register needs to be accessed from hardirq for the overflow > interrupt, and when taking an IPI to access these registers on platforms > where MSCs are not accesible from every CPU. This makes an irqsave > spinlock the obvious lock to protect these registers. On systems with > MPAM-Fb mailbox MSC access it must be able to sleep, meaning a mutex must > be used. So MPAM-Fb platforms cannot support an overflow interrupt easily. > Clearly these two methods can't exist for one MSC at the same time. > > Change the mon_sel locking wrapper function to only use a spinlock when > the MSC is accessed directly via MMIO. In case of MPAM-Fb, we use a > mutex, but only if we are in a sleepable context. If that's not the > case, we return an error. This should not happen, as MPAM-Fb by design > does not require an MSC access to happen from a specific CPU, so there > is no need for any IPIs or preemption disabling to satisfy CPU > constraints. And since overflow interrupts are not supported at the moment > anyway, we also wouldn't meet the other case. > Bailing out early is already happening in rare occasions today. > > Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c | 5 ++++- > drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c > index 6329443c451f..e2cb884eacf4 100644 > --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c > +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_devices.c > @@ -2225,7 +2225,10 @@ static struct mpam_msc *do_mpam_msc_drv_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > if (err) > return ERR_PTR(err); > > - mpam_mon_sel_lock_init(msc); > + err = mpam_mon_sel_lock_init(dev, msc); > + if (err) > + return ERR_PTR(err); > + > msc->id = pdev->id; > msc->pdev = pdev; > INIT_LIST_HEAD_RCU(&msc->all_msc_list); > diff --git a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h > index 0c3f6a040b20..b3a6ed9ed175 100644 > --- a/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h > +++ b/drivers/resctrl/mpam_internal.h > @@ -126,6 +126,7 @@ struct mpam_msc { > */ > raw_spinlock_t _mon_sel_lock; > unsigned long _mon_sel_flags; > + struct mutex mon_sel_mutex; > > void __iomem *mapped_hwpage; > size_t mapped_hwpage_sz; > @@ -139,27 +140,46 @@ struct mpam_msc { > /* Returning false here means accesses to mon_sel must fail and report an error. */ > static inline bool __must_check mpam_mon_sel_lock(struct mpam_msc *msc) > { > - /* Locking will require updating to support a firmware backed interface */ > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(msc->iface != MPAM_IFACE_MMIO)) > + if (msc->iface == MPAM_IFACE_MMIO) { > + raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&msc->_mon_sel_lock, msc->_mon_sel_flags); > + > + return true; > + } > + > + if (!preemptible()) > return false; > > - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&msc->_mon_sel_lock, msc->_mon_sel_flags); > + mutex_lock(&msc->mon_sel_mutex); > + > return true; > } > > static inline void mpam_mon_sel_unlock(struct mpam_msc *msc) > { > - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&msc->_mon_sel_lock, msc->_mon_sel_flags); > + if (msc->iface == MPAM_IFACE_MMIO) { > + raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&msc->_mon_sel_lock, > + msc->_mon_sel_flags); > + > + return; > + } > + > + mutex_unlock(&msc->mon_sel_mutex); > } > > static inline void mpam_mon_sel_lock_held(struct mpam_msc *msc) > { > - lockdep_assert_held_once(&msc->_mon_sel_lock); > + if (msc->iface == MPAM_IFACE_MMIO) > + lockdep_assert_held_once(&msc->_mon_sel_lock); > + else > + lockdep_assert_held_once(&msc->mon_sel_mutex); > } > > -static inline void mpam_mon_sel_lock_init(struct mpam_msc *msc) > +static inline int mpam_mon_sel_lock_init(struct device *dev, > + struct mpam_msc *msc) > { > raw_spin_lock_init(&msc->_mon_sel_lock); > + > + return devm_mutex_init(dev, &msc->mon_sel_mutex); Any reason not to just init the lock that's being used? Thanks, Ben > } > > DEFINE_GUARD(mon_sel,