Re: [RESEND PATCH v4 09/15] fs/resctrl: Introduce kmode_cpus/kmode_cpus_list per rdtgroup

[Reinette Chatre]

Hi Babu,

On 8/13/26 12:27 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
> On 8/13/26 13:19, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> On 8/13/26 10:57 AM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>> Hi Reinette,
>>>
>>> On 8/10/26 22:20, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>>>> Hi Babu,
>>>>
>>>> On 7/7/26 2:50 PM, Babu Moger wrote:
>>>>> Kernel-mode resctrl policies allow kernel work to be associated with a
>>>>> specific rdtgroup, optionally restricted to a subset of online CPUs.
>>>>>
>>>>> While user space can query the active kernel-mode policy and its associated
>>>>> rdtgroup through info/kernel_mode, it currently lacks visibility into the
>>>>> CPU scope of that binding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Introduce read-only kmode_cpus and kmode_cpus_list files for each rdtgroup.
>>>>
>>>> I think it will be easier to follow if this is deferred to not create these
>>>> files in all resource groups by default. Instead, at the time they are
>>>> created it should be obvious that they will only be visible in resource group
>>>> associated with the active kernel mode.
>>>
>>> I am not clear on this comment. Do you mean create these files when user associates the group to kernel mode? (during rdtgroup_config_kmode)
>>
>> No. As this changelog states it creates these files in all resource groups. This
>> is a confusing thing to do at this point in the series since these files are not
>> expected to be present/visible in all resource groups, only in a resource group that
>> is assigned to the "global" kernel mode. This commit mentions nothing about this
>> usage and thus from reader perspective does not seem like the right thing to do here.
> 
> Ok. Got it. Commit message is not clear.

This is not just about the commit message being unclear. This commit adds functionality
that patches that follow undo. I find this strategy unnecessary even if the commit message
is changed to reflect this. I find having the functionality as intended from the
beginning easier to follow.

Reinette