[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141110210821.GF10501@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 22:08:21 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Matt Fleming <matt@...sole-pimps.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Kanaka Juvva <kanaka.d.juvva@...el.com>,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Perform rotation on Intel CQM
RMIDs
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 08:56:53PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > Should we initialize that to a finite value? Surely results are absolute
> > crap if we do indeed reach that max?
>
> I don't think we'll ever reach that max, it'll bottom out once it
> reaches the size of the LLC, since the pathological case is that the
> RMID you're currently trying to stabilize is used to tag every line in
> the LLC.
Sure, LLC size is the 'same'. Makes the entire ordeal rather pointless.
> Not sure what a reasonable finite value would be here though? 10% of the
> LLC size?
Can you ask the same Oracle that provided the magic 250 ms? Both are
magic/random numbers. 10% sounds rather large, but who knows.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists