Hi Zeng,
+CC Babu (Comments on PLZA)
On 1/14/26 06:51, Zeng Heng wrote:
>> From: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan@arm.com>
>> Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2025 18:11:02 +0000
>> Subject: [PATCH v2 00/45] arm_mpam: Add KVM/arm64 and resctrl glue code
>>
>> One major departure from the previous snapshot branches referenced in the
>> base driver series is that the same MPAM setting are used for kernel-space
>> and user-space. That is, MPAM1_EL1 is set to the same value as MPAM0_EL1
>> rather than keeping the default value. The advantages of this are that it
>> is closer to the x86 model where the closid is globally applicable, all
>> partids are usable from user-space and user-space can't bypass MPAM
>> controls by doing the work in the kernel. However, this causes some
>> priority inversion where a high priority task waits to take a mutex held by
>> another whose resources are restricted by MPAM. It also adds some extra
>> isb(). I would be interested in opinions/data on the policy for MPAM in
>> kernel space, i.e how MPAM1_EL1 is set.
>
> Another advantage is that, given the small size of the L2 cache,
> frequent switching of MPAM configurations between kernel and user modes
> can cause cache-capacity jitter, making it difficult to isolate
> interference from noisy neighborhood.
>
> However, in addition to the issues mentioned above, updating the
> MPAM1_EL1 configuration also exposes interrupt handling to the MPAM
> settings of the current task.
Makes sense, thanks for these two observations.
>
> I still agree with the current modification of setting MPAM1_EL1 to the
> same value as MPAM0_EL1. However, the ARM MPAM hardware supports more
> flexible configuration schemes than x86 RDT and another approach is also
> worth considering: Software can let a control group choose whether
> kernel mode follows the user mode MPAM settings, or whether the kernel
> mode configuration is delegated to the default control group, though
> this may change the existing user interface.
I wonder if this would be possible in AMD PLZA as well. Babu?
>
> At the LPC resctrl micro-conference, Babu also mentioned the PLZA proposal
> as an attempt to address the issues raised above. Seems like no clear
> interface was presented yet. Wait to see what new interface that solution
> will introduce.
Yes, I watched a recording of that. :)
>
> One last thing, please add me to the CC list for future MPAM patch series.
> I'll provide timely testing on my local aarch64 environment and review
> feedback. Thanks.
Will do. Apologies for not doing this earlier and thank you for the
promise of testing and reviews :) There is a v3 which you have hopefully
seen.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Zeng Heng
>
>
Thanks,
Ben