lists.openwall.net | 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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 13:16:17 +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 v4 10/11] perf/x86/intel: Perform rotation on Intel CQM RMIDs On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 09:15:11PM +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: + /* > + * A reasonable upper limit on the max threshold is the number > + * of lines tagged per RMID if all RMIDs have the same number of > + * lines tagged in the LLC. > + * > + * For a 35MB LLC and 56 RMIDs, this is ~1.8% of the LLC. > + */ > + __intel_cqm_max_threshold = > + boot_cpu_data.x86_cache_size * 1024 / (cqm_max_rmid + 1); Seeing how a percentage is without unit, the 35MB figure seems pointless. Also, why would a flat distribution be a good measure for 'empty'? I would think that would in fact constitute in use. Should we make this 1/16th of this figure or any other random fraction < 1 ? -- 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