lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 4 Jan 2014 11:10:50 -0500
From:	Tejun Heo <>
To:	Peter P Waskiewicz Jr <>
Cc:	Thomas Gleixner <>,
	Ingo Molnar <>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <>, Li Zefan <>,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86: Add Cache QoS Monitoring (CQM) support


On Fri, Jan 03, 2014 at 12:34:41PM -0800, Peter P Waskiewicz Jr wrote:
> The CPU features themselves are relatively straight-forward, but
> the presentation of the data is less straight-forward.  Since this
> tracks cache usage and occupancy per process (by swapping Resource
> Monitor IDs, or RMIDs, when processes are rescheduled), perf would
> not be a good fit for this data, which does not report on a
> per-process level.  Therefore, a new cgroup subsystem, cacheqos, has
> been added.  This operates very similarly to the cpu and cpuacct
> cgroup subsystems, where tasks can be grouped into sub-leaves of the
> root-level cgroup.

I don't really understand why this is implemented as part of cgroup.
There doesn't seem to be anything which requires cgroup.  Wouldn't
just doing it per-process make more sense?  Even grouping would be
better done along the traditional process hierarchy, no?  And
per-cgroup accounting can be trivially achieved from userland by just
accumulating the stats according to the process's cgroup membership.
What am I missing here?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists